Thursday, 1 December 2011



One of the commonest slogans spouted by feminists is "it's a woman's right to choose." Well, let's be blunt about it.

Is it?

To choose WHAT?

Does a woman have any RIGHTS at all?

There, that should have sent a few robots scurrying for cover, brandishing their fists and spitting venom at me

from a safe distance, shouldn't it?

Of course it would be TOO much to expect these brainwashed clones to argue RATIONALLY against what I'm saying

True, I sometimes play devil's advocate or use shock jock tactics and to some extent I'm "shock jocking" here. Even so, I MEAN what I say.

In the old days, most women didn't work or at least, not much. Marriage was the norm and women hoped to find a man who'd be a good husband and father. Divorce was rare and almost only confined to the rich. If you DID get divorced, custody of the children almost always went to the man. On marriage, any money, property or other assets held by a woman before her marriage passed immediately over to her husband, who had full owenrship and control of them. The law even recognised the right of a husband to beat his wife if she displeased him.

Now things have been turned completely on their head. It's becoming more and more common, not just for women to work, but for THEM to be the MAIN breadwinner in the family. MOST divorces nowadays are instigated by women, usually for totally frivolous or selfish reasons. For a MAN to get custody in the event of a divorce is almost unheard of these days. Men are routinely screwed out of THEIR money, property or other assets while women get off scot-free. As for the idea that a husband has "the right to lawful chastisement of his wife," forget it! Nowadays he'd be arrested for "domestic violence!"

And are either men or women HAPPIER now? Has all this "choice" made women's lives better? Are we "fulfilled" by working as a check-out girl in a supermarket, a pen-pusher in an office, a factory worker, cleaner, chamber-maid or bank clerk?

Women now have the "right" to "choose" a "career," to "choose" to marry, divorce, fuck around or whatever, to "choose" to abort a baby regardless of the father's wishes, to "choose" to get pregnant regardless of his wishes. They even think they have the "right" to behave like sluts and yet NOT to have to face the consequences of their actions.

For feminists, "choice" is a one-way street. It's all about selfishness, self-indulgence, narcissism and

callousness. Feminists don't give a fuck about ANYONE except themselves. The whole "philosophy" of "choice" is nothing more than a universe in which " me, me, me!" is the guiding "principle."

Love? Well, one feminist "thinker" described love as a trickk to enslave women, or words to that effect. (I'll dig out the ACTUAL quote - it's every bit as stupid and repulsive as my summary!)

Women don't need all this "choice." What we need is to bring back the BALANCE between the genders.

I'll write more on that in my next post!

Wednesday, 30 November 2011

What it means to be born female

Being born female means winning second prize in life. In every way it's better to be born a man. Men are stronger than us, cleverer than us and much better at keeping things in order.

Unfortunately a whole generation - maybe two - of us girls has been raised in the deluding belief that we're as good as any man if not better.

That's just not true on any level!

Let's try thinking about it logically. In just about every way men are better than us.

1 They're physically stronger than we are

2 They're faster than we are

3 They're more intelligent than we are

4 They do everything better than we do

5 They take charge in a crisis while we panic

6 Women, so the evolutionary scientists have shown, are CLOSER to apes than men are. In other words, females are LESS human than males.

7 On any level playing field, we always perform worse than men.

8 The only reason that in some Western countries girls are outperforming boys at school is because: a) most teachers are females who are deliberately favouring the girls and trying to do down the boys; b) lessons and the curriculum have been deliberately dumbed down to the level where girls can pass them; c) lessons and the curriculum are deliberately orientated towards female interests and girlie skills; d) the education system is run on a feminist basis where boys are deliberately disempowered and girls "empowered."

9 Left to their own devices, girls find it hard to make decisions, act or react quickly, or initiate anything. In a crisis they tend to panic or freeze while a man tends to react and think immediately, decisively and effectively.

10   Women are ruled by their emotions while men tend to think rationally and work things out.

11  Women haven't got a clue about practical things while men are brilliant in that area of life.

12  We're martyrs to our bodies whether it's menstruation, pregnancy or mysterious illnesses that men never seem to get.

All round, it's difficult to see much point in our existence. We've contributed hardly anything to the world in terms of science, technology, sport, physical work, music, or art. Only in the field of literature have women managed to achieve anything and even then only in novels or poetry. Even there I can't think of any woman writer who's even on the same planet as Shakespeare, Dickens and Dostoievsky.

So what CAN women offer the world? On what level of usefulness CAN we function?

I can only think of a very small number of areas.

1   Sex - our bodies are obviously designed to be fucked.

2   Reproduction - our bodies are obviously designed to get pregnant and give birth to babies.

Other than that I can't think of ANYTHING useful we contribute to the world.

Whenever women get into positions of power or influence, whether it's politics or the economy, they cause total chaos. Either they try and behave like what they think a man would or they go all girlie and come out with total nonsense.

What good ARE women to the world other than for fucking and having babies? Even in terms of pregnancy our role is completely passive.

Without the life-giving male sperm we couldn't even GET pregnant! It's the MAN'S contribution to pregnancy that matters. Women are nothing more than vessels to carry babies till they come to birth.

So if you look at it logically, on every level we ARE as far beneath men as animals are beneath us. At best we might be thought of as a slightly better version of a cat or dog or horse. At worse we're not even as useful as they are.

Even treating us as human beings seems a bit doubtful but treating us - or even THINKING of us - as being in ANY way EQUAL to men is a bad, sick joke.

So how SHOULD females be treated in a rational, fair society?

I'll give my thoughts on that subject in my follow-up post!

Thursday, 27 October 2011

Reforming the economic system: Marriage and economic reform

Reforming the economic structure of society: Marriage and economic reforms

At present the way economics are organised in the West gives way too much power to females and disadvantages men. For instance, a man can bring in all the money into the home, buy a house, pay the mortgage and all the household bills, and yet, on a whim, she can turn him out of his home, take most of what he’s earned, ban him from seeing his kids and yet demand a fortune from him in child support. His contributions to the marriage or the partnership count for nothing in the eyes of the feminist legal system. Only her own selfish desires seem to matter to the law.

There are various possible ways of reforming the present situation. Gender equality advocates would suggest that things should be based on a proportionate assessment so that whatever the man brought into the marriage/relationship has to be weighed in the balance and that if the woman has contributed little or nothing she should get little or nothing back.

Masculists argue that the whole basis of marriage needs reforming so that at the moment a girl becomes a wife or partner she forfeits all rights to her own independent financial status and all claims upon her husband or partner’s assets. Even if she is the main breadwinner or if she brought a lot of assets into the marriage/relationship the mere fact that she now belongs to a man means a total transfer of all her rights to him. He becomes solely entitled to ownership, control and use of all her money and other assets. In the event of a divorce he would get all of those things and she would get nothing. He’d keep the home, get sole custody of the children and she’d have to pay him child support and alimony even though he’d keep 100% of any of the assets she’d brought to the marriage/relationship. She could be the main or even the only breadwinner, They also argue that all marriages should be arranged so that girls don’t get to choose their future husband and frivolous and unsuitable liaisons aren’t allowed to happen.

I think there’s a lot to be said on both sides of the fence to be honest. Obviously the present situation where the girl can more or less do what she likes and take her man to the cleaners just because she happens to be feeling that way has got to stop.  On the other hand, if she has brought most or even all the assets into the marriage, is it fair that she should lose the lot? Or is that as unfair as the present system?

I guess a lot depends on how we want society to be restructured. Yes, we need to smash the feminist and matriarchal power structure which oppresses everyone, men and women, but is it right to put in its place something that’s maybe just as oppressive? Do we want to turn us girls into slaves or do we want them to be useful contributors to society in their own right?

If we go down the road of a full-blown slave-type society, then I guess the whole question of money or assets or whatever becomes a non-issue. Females wouldn’t HAVE any money or property to begin with;’ they’d BE property so there wouldn’t be any question of how to dispose of their assets.

On the other hand, I prefer a world in which slavery is one of the many punishments open for girls who don’t know their place and break the rules. It’s more fun IMO if a girl has the chance to make something of herself but she’s constantly walking on eggshells!

So how do I think we should resolve the situation? In terms of marriage, I guess the fair thing is to weigh up the relative contributions of both partners to the relationship and home and so on and award any assets on a proportionate basis.

If a woman hasn't contributed financially to the marriage, helped buy the home or paid her way then it seems only fair that the man should get all or at least the lion's share of any money, property or other assets.

On the other hand, if she HAS contributed financially, helped buy the home or whatever then of course her contributions ought IMO to be taken into account when it comes to a financial settlement.

What about if she's working? Should her earnings be hers to keep, paid into a separate account over which only she has control?

Or should they be paid into a joint account to which both partners have access?

Or should they be paid into her husband or partner's account and only he has access to and control over it?

IMO, if she's married or has a partner, the very act of committment involves giving up any rights to independent control over her earnings or assets. The fairest way of handling money and property and so on is for there to be a joint account where both partners have access to the funds within it but the man would have a veto over any frivolous spending plans that the woman had. She wouldn't be able to stop him from drawing out her money or resources although IMO there should be a civil agreement drawn up laying down exactly what wouldn't be acceptable behaviour on his part. 

I do agree that in the event of a divorce or relationship break up that the man should get the home , sole custody of the children and that she should pay him alimony and child support. I also agree that marriages ought to be arranged by the men rather than leaving it up to the girl to make some irrational decision as to who or even if she has a husband/partner/boyfriend.

On the other hand I also believe that the other assets from the marriage should be split proportionately to take account of the relative contributions of each partner to the relationship.

In my next post I'll look at other economic reforms that I think need to be made in our society to increase fairness and restore the proper balance between the sexes.

Friday, 30 September 2011

Fixing the gender gap

Fixing the gender gap

There’s more than one way of looking at the problems between the sexes. You can take the extreme point of view – misandry or misogyny – or you can try and heal the wounds and sort out the various problems between us.

Let’s quickly look at the choices. Feminism is divided into a whole bunch of subgroups. Some of them are women who basically don’t hate men, don’t want privileged status but reckon girls get a raw deal overall, especially in some countries.  Some want privileged status but don’t hate men; some are outright misandrists. Some are female supremacists and want men to be their slaves.

Gender equality advocates want both sexes to have equal opportunity, get treated the same and to have the chance to be whatever they want to be. Men’s rights advocates aren’t all that different but there’s maybe a slight skewing in favour of men rather than women, probably to correct the sort of imbalance in favour of women we’ve got right now in the West.

Now we come to  the masculists. Like feminism, masculism has different strains. The moderate masculists are not much more demanding than men’s rights advocates, though in certain areas, especially childcare, alimony, access, divorce and so on, many of them want men to be favoured over women. The traditionalists want women to stop working, go back to being a housewife and mother, be respectful and obedient towards her husband and see the man as the head of the household with more or less absolute authority over it. The radical masculists want to turn back all the pro-feminist laws in place, to make radical changes in the economic and social system so that women and essentially to turn women into their slaves.

Like so often, I’m a bit on the middle on this issue. I can see more than one side to the argument and I don’t think we need to have a totally “one size fits all” approach to the problem.

Let’s talk specifics. I’m on record as favouring the legalisation of rape (except in the case of stranger rape which in any case will be reclassified as theft rather than sexual assault) and of recognising that so-called “domestic violence” is actually a legitimate “domestic discipline” and shouldn’t be a crime any more than rape should (a “victimless crime” if ever there was one!) Some people might think that makes me extreme; maybe it does, I dunno.

I don’t hate men or women; I think men overall are superior to us but I don’t think that gives them the right to treat us like dirt. I think men – if we’re in some kind of relationship with them - DO have the right to fuck us even if we don’t want them to and to discipline us if we get out of line. Does that mean they’ve got the right to kill us just because they happen to be feeling that way? I don’t reckon it does. Does that mean they’ve got the right to beat the shit out of us for no reason? That’s not how I see domestic discipline.

Sure, like always in life there are grey areas. Wouldn’t be life if there weren’t! Even so, the basic feel I have is that domestic violence laws need to be rewritten drastically to distinguish between legitimate domestic discipline and psychopathic behaviour. Same with rape – I think stranger rape should still be a crime but no other kind of “rape.”

What effect would it have on society in general, and especially on relations between the sexes, if men and girls knew what the “rules” of “gender etiquette” were and knew that if either of them went against them they’d have to accept the consequences? So, if a girl goes out on a date, she knows beforehand that she IS going to be fucked and that she’s got NO business crying “rape” if the guy fucks her even if she changes her mind. To be honest, if she’s willing to go on a date with a bloke she’s already – in the eyes of any sensible person and in the eyes of any just laws – given her consent to being fucked.

That would make girls think long and hard about slutting it about town and then having the nerve to expect to be able to hold out on the poor blokes. Instead of them being able to act like bullies and prick-teasers, they’d know that any date meant agreeing to sex and we’d all know exactly where we stood. Of course blokes wouldn’t HAVE to fuck the girl just because she was on a date with them but SHE’D have to fuck him whether or not she wanted to!

Fair enough, isn’t it?

Like with marriage; no more crap about having a headache or not feeling up to it. If her hubby wants to fuck her it’s the wife’s duty to let him have what he wants. Her own selfish whims in the matter don’t matter a flying fuck! So, conjugal rights would be established in the law of the land as a clear duty for the girl and an absolute right for the man.

Same with partners or even boyfriends; the bloke has an absolute right to fuck the girl and she’s got NO say in the matter at all.

Fair enough, right?

Same with domestic discipline; the bloke does have an obvious right to put his uppity wife or girlfriend or whatever in her place if she steps out of line. On the other hand, IMO he doesn’t have the right to kill her, permanently cripple or mutilate her or to beat the living shit out of her just because he happens to feel like it. Basically the girl has to have done something WRONG to deserve being disciplined.

I think we need to draw up a code of conduct that has to be followed and if it was violated that would be a reason for domestic discipline to kick in.

Domestic violence would still exist as a crime but it would be rare because allowing men to use reasonable chastisement and discipline on partners or girlfriends behaving badly would mean that only a tiny handful of blokes would cross the line.

I think these two measures – along with various economic ones that I’ll write about in my next post – would do more than anything else to get rid of the gender problems in our society!

Tuesday, 20 September 2011

Fuck me hard!

Right, hopefully I've got your attention now!

Please make some comments on my posts; it gets all lonely just waffling on to little old me!

Am I just talking to myself?

Am I just talking to myself? Lately I've made a few posts that no one's responded to!

Hey, everyone, I NEED input - especially from the Gentlemen but my fellow girls also often come up with some good ideas as well!

Please don't leave me all lonely!

Matriarchal attitudes and the dangers they pose for society

Matriarchal attitudes

There’s a book called “Patriarchal Attitudes” which is full of feminist propaganda and lies. I thought it might be fun to take a look at some sort of imaginary book called “Matriarchal Attitudes” and to make criticisms of THEIR “values.”

I’ll start off by giving some definitions of a matriarchal society:

In a matriarchal society women make the key decisions, lay down the legal framework, hold positions of power, control money and other economic assets, lay down the cultural basis of the society and how it sees the world around it.

Feminists try to claim that society in the West is NOT matriarchal but it’s difficult to take their claims seriously. OK, the US hasn’t had a female President yet (though with Palin and Bachmann emerging as the flag-bearers for the conservative wing of the Republicans that seems to be changing) but Britain, Germany, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, India, Pakistan, Norway, Indonesia, the Philippines, Argentina, Bangla Desh, Dominica and a number of other countries all have or have had female leaders.

The legal framework is overwhelmingly dominated by feminist ideas. In childcare, equal opportunities at work, affirmative action or positive discrimination programmes, divorce, custody of and access to children, child support, rape, domestic violence, hate speech, the crazy laws on obscenity, the pathetic slap on the wrist women get at best if they commit crimes compared with the harsh punishments men get for the same or even LESS serious offences – all these show pretty clearly, blatantly even, the total unfairness of where we are now and the way in which our society is being run in the interests of girls.

Look at the way the media presents violence against men – it’s made out like it was somehow men’s fault or, even worse, a joke. If it’s a woman who’s using violence against a man then somehow that’s just FUNNY but the other way round and it’s a crime!

In advertising, women are portrayed as being sensible, capable and in charge while men are shown as stupid, useless and not knowing what they’re doing.

In the law it’s all stacked in favour of the woman too. On every aspect of law girls do better than men. A man fighting a woman in court might as well throw in the towel because the law is set up to reflect matriarchal and feminist “values.”

The economy? In the US women hold most of the money. In the UK it’s not quite got to that stage yet but with girls routinely slapping men with alimony and taking half (at least) of what he’s got it’s going the same way fast. The economy is skewed in favour of feminist interests like welfare, child support, crèches, most healthcare spending going on females and so on. The latest statistics show that women aged 20-30 are earning MORE than men the same age and the trend is set to continue until most breadwinners in the family are female. It’s also becoming more and more common among younger couples for the GIRL to be the one who brings in the money and the man to be at home doing the housework and looking after the children. Not that I think that’s necessarily wrong, but it shows how the balance of power is tilted inexorably in favour of females. Men seem to be put upon and have a lot of duties laid upon them while girls seem to have all the rights and hardly any responsibilities.

The cultural basis of our society is definitely dominated by feminist and matriarchal ideas and by female wishes. We see films, documentaries (actually propaganda), books, magazines and so on, all catering to female interests and feminist ideas.

Matriarchy isn’t necessarily a question of numbers; it’s about a structure in society where women are dominant because of their access to or control over status-related positions and decisions, either directly or indirectly. The media is a feminist powerhouse for propaganda and keeping men down.

Matriarchy is enforced in a number of different ways – intimidation of men through physical violence (knowing the courts won’t believe the man when he tells about being abused by a girl so she can get away with it no matter how badly she hurts him); by denial of sex, false accusations of rape or threats to make such allegations; insisting upon (and getting) a special privileged legal, economic and political status for women; and attacking all attempts by men to co-operate and organise together or even RESIST feminist and matriarchal ideologies or oppressive behaviour as “sexism.”

Matriarchal societies make extensive use of the law, the government, the police and prisons to enforce their authoritarian and, to be honest, essentially fascist political agenda. They also go out of their way to encourage contempt and hatred for men and fight against any attempt by males to emancipate themselves. Girls are encouraged to look on men as the enemy to be fought and as tools to be used for their convenience.

Men are even expected to see themselves as oppressors and females as being victims, even though the opposite is almost always the case. They learn history – often renamed “herstory” – through a feminist propagandist view, they learn literature and art through a viewpoint of the “suppression” of female achievements; they are even told that females are the only role models for society to follow. Girls can do what they like and men get punished for even the smallest “offence” against feminist and matriarchal “values,”  

Patriarchal societies place men at the heart of decision making. In a patriarchal society, the crime of rape is almost non-existent, as men’s rights (including their sexual rights) are placed at the heart of how the society is run. Men are allowed and encouraged to express themselves and be full members of society.

Masculism says that we live in a matriarchal society where the power structure is run in the interests of the matriarchy. They make quite a few points to show how they think this is true.

1                    Women oppress men by claiming to be the only child-carer that matters.
2                    The lives of men are seen as less important than those of girls and women.
3                    Men are routinely given harsher sentences than women for the same criminal acts.
4                    Excuses are routinely made for bad behaviour by women when men get punished severely for their own excesses
5                    Women expect men to support them financially either directly or indirectly through the tax system, alimony and so on.
6                    Women expect men not to attack them but to be free to attack men.
7                    Women expect men to protect them but to be free not to protect men.
8                    Women expect men to do all the dangerous jobs and just keep the cushy little work for themselves.
9                    Women live longer than men and yet the matriarchy won’t allow any sort of investigation in to why this is true or any funding to improve the situation.
10                Women get the lion’s share of healthcare funding even though men die younger and get more illnesses.
11                Men kill themselves more often than women, because they’ve become victims of matriarchal oppression, matriarchal structures and gender defined subservience.
12                Men have to risk their lives in war while women get off scot free and sit at hope just criticising them.
13                Female genital mutilation is condemned while male genital mutilation is allowed or even encouraged.
14                Girls do better than boys in school because most teachers are female and the curriculum and structure of education are dominated by females and by feminist ideas.
15                If a girl has sex with a man and gets pregnant it’s her choice to have or to abort the baby and he has no say.
16                A girl can consent to sex without consenting to pregnancy. A man can’t because if he gets her pregnant he is responsible even if he didn’t want to have the child and even if he thought the girl was using contraception but she lied.
17                Just being pregnant gives a girl automatic parental rights while a man has to do much more than that to have any kind of rights – which anyway are only discretionary ones – over the kid.

How valid are these masculist criticisms of what they see as our matriarchal society? In the first place it’s quite a mixed bag of arguments. Some are about laws and economics; some about biology and psychology; and some about attitudes and behaviour.

Obviously laws and economic problems can be changed and improved; attitudes and behaviour can alter either individually or in general over time. Psychology, unless we’re going to engage in mass brainwashing, is a much tougher nut to crack and biology, except I guess with genetic engineering, almost impossible to change.

The problem of boys

An adult man might get irritated or bored or just dismiss the public assault on his gender. If he’s a confident and established person it shouldn’t bother him much. But this is entirely different for boys who grow up in all this bombardment with female superiority. Since the 80’s or even before that, boys have been born right into the battlefield of a gender assault and they’re the real victims. In this decade, for the first time, we’re seeing a generation of young adult men who grew up in this hostile and female-dominated environment and we’re only now beginning to see the results of this mass hatred of their gender.

Boys grow up with the idea that feminine values are the only ones that are good and that male values are worthless and/or evil. They grow up being told constantly that females know best and that they should feel ashamed of being male. Of course the result of all this propaganda and conditioning is obvious. The boys end up going one of two ways – either they become all feminized and poofy or else they react against their female oppressors.

Violence against girls and women isn’t irrational or mindless cruelty; it’s a rational act of self-defence against feminist oppression. Don’t blame boys for striking out, beating up girls or raping them or whatever. They’re just trying to survive in a hostile and female-dominated society where their contributions aren’t valued and they’re oppressed on every level.

Boys are literally crushed at school by the feminists and matriarchs. With only 1 in 4 teachers male, the boys being constantly subjected to relentless bombardment by feminist propaganda, it’s not surprising that they totally underperform girls. And the feminists use their failure as ammunition (or, as they call it, “evidence”) that GIRLS were held back and that boys are naturally stupid.

Women are becoming dominant in “professional” jobs and men are becoming more and more badly treated by the education system. We’re cantering full tilt towards a matriarchy or, even worse, a female supremacist society.

The present trend, growing all the time, is that more and more families will have a female breadwinner and a male homemaker and child carer. Most families will have a situation where the girl is more educated than the man.

How matriarchy rules 

With the bulk of purchasing power coming to be in the hands of females, advertising, the commercial world, banks, the media and so on will more or less ignore men and their own needs and interests. They will go for the cash cow of the female consumer and target girls and women as their likely purchasers. Even in traditional male areas of advertising and such, like cars and DIY, the producers and marketers will aim their products mainly at women. This is already happening and is an increasing trend. Property too will be aimed largely at a female client base. 

In the field of employment, bosses will gear (as they already are increasingly) the work place towards the “needs” of their female workers. Men will become more and more marginal in terms of the employment market, largely confined to low paid, low status jobs while the girls get all the “plum” positions. Even in the workplace, crèches and similar things will become the norm which will increase the number of single mother families. Men will be seen more or less as sperm donors and not much else. They will, unless they’re lucky enough to become a male homemaker, find themselves shut out of family life as well as meaningful employment.

Once women own most of the wealth and make most of the financial decisions in our society, both on the level of the home and in the wider world of work and so on, politics will become increasingly dominated by female interests. It won’t necessarily mean that all or even most politicians and leader will be female but it will mean that women’s interests will be the first and most important consideration for any political parties who want to gain power. They will have to put what women want first and put the interests and needs of men and  boys right at the bottom of the pile when it comes to decision making. Because the higher paid and higher status jobs will be dominated by women, they in turn will make sure that only females get promoted and men are held back or squeezed out of certain kinds of work altogether. It’s just possible that they might start introducing “affirmative action” and “positive discrimination” programmes for men but I doubt it somehow.

Men and boys, frustrated at the lack of opportunities for them and the lack of value given to their contributions, will increasingly “drop out” or go into crime. Violence against women, rape and “femicide” will increase. Men already commit suicide at a far higher rate than girls and more male suicides can confidently be expected. Male homelessness, already far higher than that of women, will also increase, especially as very few men will be able to afford to buy or even rent a home with the female-dominated economy.

The role of men in a matriarchal society

I think men will find themselves serving in the armed forces, doing the heavy construction work and stuff like that. I can’t see many girls voluntarily going down the mines or fighting in Afghanistan or whatever so men are likely to still have to do that sort of thing. If men decided to go on strike against the matriarchy, or even to stage a military coup, I don’t see how the women could win against them. Whether they’d achieve anything other than just smashing the feminist power structure is dubious, though, because with all the economic power held by females it would be tough for the males to take back power.

So how can the problems between men and women be resolved? That’s a big question and I’m going to deal with it in several separate pieces on my blog.

I’d just like to say that I think a matriarchal society is harmful to both genders and that we’d be far better off IMO by returning to the values of a patriarchal society or even a radical masculist way of doing things.

Friday, 9 September 2011

The war against men

I've just got back from holiday and I'm working on a new post about the increasing drift in the West towards a matriarchal society and the undeclared war against men.

Watch this space - hopefully in a few days I'll have it ready to post!

By the way, I'd appreciate some comments on my two posts about domestic violence and my suggestions on family law reform.

Sunday, 21 August 2011

Family law reform

Family Law reform

The whole area of family law needs drastic reform. In almost every way it’s totally unfair to men and of course there are different ideas on what should be done and how to fix the problems created by feminists.

There’s the gender equality approach, the moderate masculist one and the radical masculist solution. All would be better than what we’ve got now and I’ll go through them and explain them.

The way things are right now is that feminist laws have got us into the following situation. Women don’t bother to get married at all or if they do they get divorced at the drop of a hat. If they split up they got the family home, sole custody of the children, huge sums in alimony from the ex-partner and they can more or less deny him any access to the kids if they feel like it.

Even worse, if men object to how they’re being treated then they can be arrested for “domestic violence” and no matter how much they struggle to pay the alimony the woman always wants more. If the man can’t pay then he can be arrested and thrown into prison more or less indefinitely.

And that’s just one of the many areas of family law that needs reform. Let’s start by looking at the various ways we could improve things.

In the first place, the divorce laws need reforming. Gender equality advocates want to scrap the whole idea of “no fault” divorces and for divorce only to be legal if there’s clear proof of adultery or cruelty. They still want both sexes to be able to get a divorce, though.

Moderate masculists take a different approach, arguing that there’s no reason to scrap the grounds for existing divorces – in fact, they want divorce to be easier than it is right now – but that it shouldn’t be an option for a woman. They argue that a man should be able to divorce his wife freely but that she should be absolutely forbidden to apply for a divorce from him.

Radical masculists agree with the moderate ones but go further. They want a two-tier system of divorce, one a “no fault” divorce where the husband divorces his wife without laying any blame on her and a second layer of “aggravated divorce” where he complains about her behaviour or attitudes.

So who’s right? Should we just let everyone get divorced willy-nilly like they do now? Should we only allow it in the case of adultery or cruelty? Should both husbands and wives be able to apply for a divorce? And should we have a two-tier system where “aggravated divorce” leads to tougher penalties against the “rogue partner,” as radical masculists describe the wife in their suggested reforms?

I’ll come back to those questions later in my post. Let’s look at another big problem in terms of divorce – custody of children from the marriage. At the moment almost every divorce ends up with the wife getting the sole custody of the children. Gender equality thinkers want joint custody to be the norm and only in very exceptional circumstances should the court grant sole custody to either parent. They also want the claims of fathers to be weighed equally with those of the mother when it comes to custody.

Moderate masculists broadly agree but want a two-tier system, one where joint custody is the norm but the presumption of the court is in favour of giving “primary custody" to the father rather than the wife and one where sole custody is awarded to the man. Radical masculists want to turn the existing system on its head and insist that sole custody must always be given to the father in the event of a divorce.

I’ll look at these ideas later on. In the meantime I’m going to look at money, property and other assets. Is it right that, as happens now in almost every case, the husband loses his home, his kids, is forced to pay huge sums of alimony and child support to his wife and is basically asked to finance the theft of his own children? And if it isn’t right, what can we do about it?

Again, there are three approaches to the question. The gender equality advocates want alimony and child support to be abolished altogether and for all assets within a marriage to be assessed by the court on the basis of who contributed them and then make a decision based on the proportion of money and so on contributed by each partner.

Moderate masculists take more or less the same view but want the court to award a higher proportion of the assets to the husband than the wife and also to make the wife contribute a larger share of child support costs than the man on the grounds that, even with joint custody, they want the man to be recognised in law as the “primary carer.”

Radical masculists want not just to turn the existing laws on their head but to make them even more unfavourable to an ex-wife than the ones we’ve got right now are to ex-husbands. They want to keep alimony and child support but make it only payable by the wife to the husband; give all assets from the marriage 100% to the husband and 0% to the wife; and to keep all the feminist-inspired harsh sanctions against “deadbeat Dads” but to use them against “deadbeat Mums” instead.

Then there’s the question of “no fault” divorces and “aggravated divorce” proposals. In a no fault divorce, the court just recognises that the man wants a divorce and that it’s not a question of anyone being at fault. In an aggravated divorce, the wife’s behaviour is held against her as being a reason for divorcing her.

The following grounds are suggested by radical masculists for aggravated divorce: adultery, cruelty, mental cruelty and unreasonable behaviour. As always with the masculist approach, these charges can only be made by a husband against his wife, not the other way round. If she’s found guilty of these offences then the court can order all sorts of additional types of punishment against her.

The question of access to children from the marriage also needs to be reformed. Gender equality wants each partner to have 50-50 access to the kids; moderate masculists want to see a 4-3 or 5-2 split in favour of the father; and radical masculists want it to be entirely up to him where, when, how often and even if she can see the children. Radical masculists want “no access” to be the norm for a mother if it’s an aggravated divorce and “limited access” – once a month or less often – to be the general rule even in a no fault divorce.

Those are the basic options (though radical masculists also want to use the existing feminist laws against husbands and fathers and turn them on wives and mothers instead.) I’ll deal with them in a separate post because they’re more part of the discussion about reforms in the criminal code in general rather than just in the area of family law.

Then there’s the question of adultery. Should it be a crime for women but legal for men, a crime for both sexes or for neither?

Gender equality advocates don’t think it should be a crime at all; the moderate masculists think it should be a crime for both sexes and radical masculists think it should only be a crime for a girl to commit adultery.

Then there’s the question of what basis marriage ought to be done on. Gender equality advocates want it to be a free choice by both partners; moderate masculists want it to be a case where marriages are arranged on behalf of the girl by her male guardian and the male suitor but the girl would have the right to say no; and radical masculists want all marriages to be arranged and for the girl to have no say at all in the matter.

Then there’s the question of multiple partners. Should both sexes be able to have as many wives or husbands as they like? Should both only be able to have just one? Or should one gender be able to have multiple partners and the other not?

Gender equality thinks either no one should be able to have more than one husband or wife or alternatively both should be able to. Moderate masculists want men to be able to have more than one wife up to a maximum of ten but women would only be allowed one husband. Radical masculists want men to be able to have as many wives as they like but a girl can only have one husband.

Then there’s the cases of contraception and abortion. Gender equality wants both sexes to be able to use contraception of their own free choice; masculists (moderate and radical) want it to be entirely the decision of the man whether or not birth control can be used.

With abortion, gender equality want both partners to reach a mutual decision but if they disagree they want the woman’s wishes to be the deciding factor; moderate masculists want only the man to decide on the issue; radical masculists want the same but also insist that if the girl is carrying a male child abortion can NEVER be an option.

So how do I feel about the various suggestions? In the first place, who should be able to get a divorce – husband, wife, either, both, neither? IMO divorce should only be an option open to the husband. I don’t think a wife should ever be able to get divorced of her own free will but I think the husband should have the right to divorce her. I also agree with the radical masculists about a two-tier system of no fault divorces and of aggravated divorces.

On the custody issue I agree with the gender equality position. I think joint custody is the best solution and that sole custody is always going to lead to unfairness towards the non-custodial partner. I also agree with them about a 50-50 split when it comes to access because otherwise I think it’s unfair to the non-custodial partner. On the distribution of assets I also agree with them though I’m not so sure about alimony and child support. IMO the partner with more money should pay something extra into the pot to help financially.

Should marriages be arranged on her behalf and the girl have no say at all in the matter? I find that quite a sexy fantasy but I’m not sure it’s a good idea in reality. I can see how it’s probably better overall to have marriages arranged for girls under, say, the age of 30 but over that age I think it should be a mutual decision. And even with the young ones I do think she should have the right to say no.

On multiple partners I’m not sure to be honest. I find it an incredibly sexy fantasy to be, say, in a harem of girls all getting fucked by their hubby and not being able to be unfaithful to him. On the other hand I can also see the problems that might cause. On balance I suppose I’d say it might be worth a limited trial period to see how it works out. And, of course, it could only be on the basis of husbands having multiple wives and not the other way round.

On adultery I’m a bit iffy. To be honest how I feel is I’d always be faithful to my husband and I’d like him to be the same with me. On the other hand, if he did have an affair my first thought would be to wonder what I’d done wrong and what the other woman had to offer that he wasn’t getting from me. I’d try and think about my own behaviour and see how I could improve it to make him stay faithful. But if you absolutely push me and say, should either partner have the right to cheat on the other one, I guess I’d have to say that it’s more understandable when a man does it than when a woman does. If it’s a cheating wife or a cheating husband, I think the wife is more to blame to be honest. And I’d definitely blame the other woman for leading him on and want her to be punished in some sort of way – whether by me beating the shit out of her or by the law giving her some sort of punishment. If the law was going to be changed, though, I guess I’d support making it a crime for the wife (and the other woman) but not for the husband.

On contraception and abortion I take the view that it should be up to the man to decide on those issues. Whatever he wants is the right decision. I also agree with the radical masculists that if the girl’s carrying a boy she should be absolutely forbidden to have an abortion. I think how she feels should be taken into account on the questions of contraception or abortion but the final decision should be made by the man.

By my standards this is one of my more moderate posts – I’m taking the middle ground on most issues and favouring gender equality on most of the solutions!

Thursday, 18 August 2011

Reforming the laws on domestic violence

Reforming the laws on domestic violence

As well as reforming the “rape” laws, another area of law that needs to be completely changed is “domestic violence.” Under the present pro-feminist laws, “domestic violence” is defined so widely that almost anything a man says or does could be called “domestic violence” or “spousal abuse.”

The present laws are totally unfair to men and more or less a license for girls to do whatever they like. In the first place, they start from the false assumption that the majority of victims of domestic violence are female and the majority of abusers are men. Actually the figures from police reports and other sources show that it’s really the other way round. Mostly it’s the girls who are the aggressors and men who are the victims of domestic violence.

Even when females make complaints about spousal abuse, in most cases it’s actually them who are the aggressors and the men who were the victims of female violence. 

Let’s look at some specific ways in which the present pro-feminist laws are unfair. If you raise your voice to a girl, she can have you arrested for “domestic violence.” The US Justice Department defines domestic violence as including “extreme jealousy and possessiveness,” and “name calling and constant criticizing.” Men are routinely put into American prisons for such “crimes” even without having had a trial. Females are allowed to admit in court that they are lying and yet receive no sort of punishment for doing so. Lawyers routinely advise them on how to make up totally false accusations of “domestic violence” and the girl’s word is always taken regardless of the evidence. A judge in New Jersey even had the nerve to tell his fellow judges “your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man you’re violating.” The New Jersey laws openly admit they ignore “due process” because “it perpetuates the cycle of power whereby the perpetrator remains the one with the power and the victim remains powerless.” The burden of proof rests on the defendant to prove his innocence and NOT on the prosecution to prove his guilt.

There are also so-called “integrated domestic violence courts,” where not only is the man’s guilt presumed but his property can be seized even if he is not found guilty or even formally charged. He can have this type of “decision” against him even if he’s not there to defend himself or refute the accusations.

In Pennsylvania, things are even worse. There, men can be imprisoned without trial until they sign confession forms stating “I have physically and emotionally battered me partner.” Even if he insists that he did NOT commit any kind of abuse, he is still made to “describe” the “violence” he used and to say “I am responsible for the violence I used,” the forms declare. “My behaviour was not provoked.” In other words, a completely innocent man can be held in prison indefinitely until he confesses to a crime that he didn’t commit, just to satisfy the vengeance of a partner and in the interests of feminist lies.

So how can we reform this crazy and unfair system? There are basically three options we can choose. One is to go down the “gender equality” road and treat men and women as equally capable of violence, subject to the same penalties if they’re found guilty, the burden of proof being on the prosecution rather than the defence, and false accusations being punished by giving the accuser the same sentence the perpetrator would have got if they’d been found guilty.

Another is to redefine domestic violence so that ONLY physical abuse can be looked on as a crime. All the complaints about nagging, jealousy and so on would be totally outside the scope of the law.

Then there’s the masculist approach. This comes in two forms, one just to abolish the offence altogether and redefine it as a victimless crime. On this approach, masculism argues that a man possesses the “absolute and unfettered right to use “all reasonable methods of control, education, and punishment to maintain discipline over all the female members of his household.” The crime of “domestic violence” will be struck from the statute book and reclassified as “the necessary maintenance of discipline over the lazy, recalcitrant, rude, dishonest, feckless or any otherwise unsatisfactory attitudes or behaviour displayed by female members of a household.”

That approach would mean that no man could ever be arrested, brought to trial or imprisoned for domestic violence. On the other hand, it doesn’t deal with the question of how we should deal with female violence.

What sort of behaviour by a female would be looked on as being “domestic violence” under masculist philosophy? Radical masculists believe that the answer is to turn the existing feminist legislation on its head, partly as a deserved punishment for feminists and partly just because they want to show girls how inferior they are to men and how much a gentleman can make them suffer if he wants to.

It does agree with moderate masculists that “domestic violence” by men should no longer be a crime and instead should be officially reclassified as only “domestic discipline.” On the other hand, it wants to make it possible to punish females who step out of line.

The radical masculists suggest a number of legal reforms but as some of them overlap with a wider field of reforms to “family law” I’ll deal with them when I post on that subject. Specifically in terms of the question of domestic violence, they argue that what’s needed is not just to change the definitions to make “domestic violence” the legal and legitimate act of “domestic discipline” by a man but also to turn the existing laws on their head.

They want it laid down in law that a man can NEVER be guilty of “domestic violence” and that whatever he does is only “domestic discipline” to keep the woman in check and under control. So far, all masculist thinkers agree on decriminalising the existing law on male “domestic violence” and just making it the legal act of justified and praiseworthy “domestic discipline” by a man against an uppity girl.

No crime at all there, then; only just, fair and thoroughly well-deserved punishment or education for females!

On the other hand, radical masculists want the domestic violence laws to be kept on the statue books. From now on, though, only females could ever be found guilty of that crime and, of course, punished severely for it.
They suggest adopting a combination of the New Jersey and Pennsylvania models in terms of the way the crime should be handled but this time, instead of men having to be on the receiving end, only females would be subject to what radical masculists call “the tough justice programme for female abusers.” They’ve also adapted some of the existing child abuse laws in the United States to strengthen the legal framework when it’s dealing with a girl accused of domestic violence.

Here is how their proposals for changes in the law would work.

To begin with, the law will now say that if a girl raises her voice to a man, he can have her arrested for domestic violence. The Supreme Court will define domestic violence as including not only physical abuse but “jealousy” “possessiveness,” “name calling” “criticizing her partner,” “nagging and scolding,” “raising her voice,” “making faces or other insulting gestures,” “inappropriate laughter or smiling,” “threatening facial expressions,” “unreasonable attitudes,” and “a general demeanour of aggression and violence.”

Domestic violence would be divided into two parts, “active aggression” and “passively aggressive behaviour.” Physical violence by a girl and the other things mentioned above would all be classed as “active aggression” on her part and would attract a more severe level of punishment than “passive aggressive behaviour.”

Passive aggression would be defined as “lack of consideration,” “lack of sensitivity,” “lack of enthusiasm,” “laziness,” “lack of respect,” “not praising her partner,” “ingratitude towards him” and “a failure to remind him continually of his own superiority to her.”

New Female Abuse Courts would be set up in which the girl’s guilt would automatically be presumed unless she could conclusively demonstrate her innocence; her money, property or other assets could be seized even if she is not guilty or even not formally charged; and these judgements can be made against her even if she is not there to defend herself or dispute the charges against her.

Judges in these courts will be guided by the masculist principles that “your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the girl you’re violating.” They will also ignore “due process” because “it perpetuates the cycle of power whereby the perpetrator remains the one with the power and the victim remains powerless.” The ENTIRE burden of proof will rest on the defendant to prove her innocence and NOT on the prosecution to prove her guilt.

Even if the girl gets to the Female Abuse Court, she won’t be allowed to have a lawyer to defend herself; she won’t be allowed to know what the evidence against her is; she won’t be allowed to know the “specifics” of the charges against her, only that she’s accused of domestic violence; she won’t be allowed to cross-examine witnesses or dispute the testimony they give; she isn’t allowed to call any witnesses on her behalf; hearsay evidence is admissible against her; syndrome evidence will be admissible against her (see more on that in a minute); she has no right to confront her accuser; she has no right to dispute any of the testimony or evidence against her; and she has no right to produce any evidence of her own to dispute the prosecution’s case.

She’ll be compelled to take the stand; compelled to testify even if what she says incriminates herself or might do so; forced to answer leading questions by counsel; constantly interrupted, contradicted and generally browbeaten while she gives her testimony; reminded constantly that she is under oath and that perjury carries an automatic two-year prison term with hard labour; reminded that a full confession by her of her abuse of her partner will lead to a lesser sentence and that therefore it’s in her own best interests to be “honest” and “confess” rather than “lie to the court” in a “futile attempt to deny her aggressive and violent behaviour” against her “abused partner.”

In a domestic violence case, the man doesn’t have to appear in court to face the defendant. He can give his testimony through a videotape made by the prosecution which is valid as evidence and can’t be challenged by the female defendant. Even a simple written statement by him will be accepted in court as “sufficient evidence” of abuse. In domestic violence cases an “outcry” witness can also give hearsay evidence against the girl which is always admissible and regarded as clear “evidence of guilt.” Again, their testimony can’t be disputed by the girl.

“Syndrome Evidence” is where an expert witness testifies that the man is suffering from “female domestic abuse syndrome” (FDAS). This is a theory put forward by masculist psychologists which states that if a man behaves in a certain way it’s because he’s a victim of domestic abuse. By using syndrome evidence, that state doesn’t have to provide any proof of abuse. If the man shows certain “patterns of behaviour” then he was obviously a victim of domestic abuse. If he cries or shouts then he must have been abused; if he has nightmares, he must have been abused. If he is silent or withdrawn, he must have been abused. If he’s loud or extraverted, he must have been abused; if the man is happy in the presence of his female partner, it’s either because he’s afraid of her or the girl has managed to “condition” him to “enjoy” the abuse. 

The new laws would lay down that there was no need to produce any sort of physical evidence of abuse. The testimony of expert witnesses, not just in FDAS but other areas of “gender medicine” in which doctors, nurses and other health workers specialise are enough to convict a female defendant of domestic violence. They will give their expert opinion that a man HAS been abused by his female partner. In particular their opinion that the man’s “behaviour” or “symptoms” are “consistent with domestic violence” will be regarded as “overwhelming proof of guilt.” Just on the basis of testimony from these “gender medicine” specialists, girls can be found guilty without any other evidence against them.

The average time of the hearings in the Female Abuse Courts is between five to fifteen minutes. During the course of that brief trial, girls can be sentenced to months or years in prison. And there’s no right of appeal by the girl against her sentence.

And, of course, that’s once it GETS to a Female Abuse Court. Girls can simply be arrested and held in prison without trial until they sign a confession form stating “I have physically and emotionally battered me partner.” Even if she insists that she did NOT commit any kind of abuse, she is still made to describe the violence she used and to say “I am responsible for the violence I used,” the forms declare. “My behaviour was not provoked.” In other words, the girl can now be held in prison indefinitely until she confesses to her crimes.
Only if the girl makes a full confession of her guilt or her male partner petitions the Female Abuse Court to bring her before them for judgement will she finally be brought to trial. Until then she’ll be held in prison indefinitely. Radical masculists expect a nearly 100% confession rate as a result of these reforms!

If she’s confessed then the court will just rubber-stamp her guilt and decide on a sentence; if she’s still refusing to confess and her male partner has brought her before the court she’ll get a much MORE severe sentence when (as she almost inevitably will be) she gets found guilty than if she’d just confessed in prison.

Sound like a fair way to reform the laws so the feminists get what they dished out to men?



For a girl, the whole idea of privacy, which can only be based on the idea of having a separate, independent self and an individual personal identity, is ridiculous and should be firmly squashed. 

Only gentlemen are entitled to a private life; a girl’s whole existence must be lived out in public, before a (mainly) male audience. She HAS no private life, every aspect of a girl’s existence having to be as an extension of a man. Every action in her life, however small, must always be carried out in public, in full view of others, preferably gentlemen.

She must be under constant observation twenty-four hours a day. No matter how trivial or how intimate an action she is carrying out, she must be at all times closely watched, either physically or on CCTV and preferably by using both methods.

A girl, even when she is alone, must never be out of the sight and hidden control of her male superiors. Her continual nudity is yet another way of reinforcing her lack of privacy. So is the legal requirement that if she goes out of her home she must always carry an identity card with her. 

The identity card itself is deliberately designed to demonstrate her innate inferiority as a mere female, being a full-length portrait of her naked, with her legs spread, and both front and rear views of her nudity being required on the document, as well as her fingerprints and personal data. Only females have to carry an identity card; males are exempt. Any male has the right to stop a female anywhere outside her home at any time and demand to see her identity card. He also has the right to carry out an on the spot strip search and full body cavity search. She has no choice but to hand over her ID card and to allow him to strip search her naked body. He has a legal right to do it and she has no legal right to refuse.

Even the most intimate of activities are not carried out in private. The law forbids what it calls “voluntary masturbation” by girls, although it allows “supervised masturbation” with a male watching and directing every aspect of her self-stimulation. A girl isn’t even allowed to frig herself off in private – only with a man watching and directing the whole thing!

Because of the mandatory nudity for females, even if a girl’s having her period she isn’t allowed to wear a sanitary towel. She’ll only be allowed to use a tampon to deal with her menstrual flow.

Even when she’s having sex it must always be recorded on DVD and if the man who was fucking her decides he wants to, made to watch an “action replay” of the whole process, especially if he wants to use the film to criticise her “performance,” her body or the girl in general. Carrying on like that is likely to be pretty standard practice among gentlemen in the new post-feminist order. It all helps to remind her of her inferiority to him in every possible way.

Girls have to get used to being naked, never allowed any privacy, not allowed access to a phone, a computer, the internet, not allowed to send a letter or see anyone without the express permission of a man. Even when they sleep they will be monitored 24 hours a day by CCTV cameras and hidden tapes that will pick up everything she does or says.    

Even when she goes to the toilet that will be monitored too. If she’s on her own at home cameras and recording equipment will record every second of the girl doing her business; if she’s outside the home and needs to “go” she’ll have to stop the nearest male she sees and ask him to allow her to piss or shit. 

Since it’s against the law for a girl to use any public toilet without being accompanied by a man, he’ll go with her and stand in front of her while she goes in. The cubicles in female toilets don’t have any doors so he’ll be able to see the whole thing from start to finish. Her doing her business will also be recorded on the cameras and sound tape equipment in the toilets.

Like I said, EVERY aspect of a girl’s life has to be carried out in public and in full view of gentlemen. She has NO life of her own and her ONLY existence is as an extension of gentlemen.

Wednesday, 17 August 2011

Nudity for females

      Nudity for females

In the early days of slavery, right up to around the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, when the influence of Puritanism began to be felt, wearing clothes was an outward and visible sign of the difference between being a slave or free. Although most females weren’t slaves as such, and many of them had very fine, elaborate and expensive clothes, especially the aristocracy and the wealthy women, millions of girls WERE slaves and, as a mark of their own lowly status, they went about naked all the time, even in public.

IMO that’s the way it ought to be now, except that I reckon all females without exception should be naked for the whole of their lives. Not just in private, but in public too. Clothes should be a privilege only men are entitled to.  

From the very earliest time the girl should become used to being naked in the presence of clothed men. For a gentleman, nudity is a free choice; for a girl, it is her normal state and acts as an obvious and immediate reminder of her own inferiority to him as a mere female. A girl should get used to her constant nudity in the presence of clothed gentlemen and simply accept it as her natural lot in life.

Girls will grow up being naked themselves, seeing all the other females around them naked and the gentlemen wearing clothes, unless they choose to be naked. Over the course of time it will become a natural state to her and she won’t even think about it, just accepting that’s the way it is for a girl.

Although she’ll get used to her nakedness, especially once you’ve got a whole generation of girls who’ve been nude from birth, it’s important to remember that her nudity is quite different from that of a man. A man or boy can choose to wear clothes or to be naked; for a female, there IS no choice about it. Her nakedness is an open symbol of her inferior status and of the innate superiority of gentlemen. It is important to make sure that the girl understands that she IS naked simply BECAUSE she is female and, therefore, simply because she IS female, inferior in every way to the superior male gender. Her nakedness is an outward sign of her natural inferiority, of her respect for and submissiveness towards men, of her total and unquestioning willingness to serve them, as a constant reminder to her of her own inferiority and the superiority of males, and of course as a visible display and a continual awareness of herself as being above everything else, a “sex object” for men’s sexual gratification and use.

A girl’s nakedness also serves other useful purposes, the most important of them being keeping her in a continual state of humility towards men; having a constant sense of her own vulnerability – both on the physical and sexual level; making her more easily available to men if they want to use her body for their pleasure; and constantly reinforcing the hard but necessary lesson of the inherent difference between men and girls, which is that HE has a strong, manly prick that thrusts forcefully inside her three female orifices, while she only has a weak, feminine cunt that must wait passively for man the giver of life to thrust inside it.

I’ve mentioned the connection between nakedness and a girl’s inferiority. This sense of subordination and lesser status should be reinforced in as many ways as possible and as often as possible. Her nakedness can be used as a way of making her continually aware of her own inferiority and also of making her aware of her status as a sex object. From the early days of her life she’ll be constantly reminded that she has a cunt and that it’s her cunt that makes her different from and inferior to men. The girl will have to get used to having her naked body touched and also commented on by other people. As she gets older and develops tits they’ll be compared with those of other females. She should be made not only to be constantly aware of her naked body but to feel ashamed of it.

For instance, whatever size her tits are, they will always be criticised as being either too big or too small. Her tits will never be the “right” size and this constant criticism of them adds to her humiliation and her feelings of shame and inadequacy. Her cunt, arse, belly, face, mouth and hair will also be constantly criticised and compared unfavourably with an “ideal” feminine picture that will never be recognised in her.

It will also be explained to her from the earliest age that her body does NOT belong to her and that she has NO control over it. She must submit to being felt up, groped, probed, prodded, pinched and spanked by complete strangers without complaining or resisting their attentions.

I could write a lot more about this but it’s probably better if I break down the various ways it works in specific situations.

But that's for tomorrow!