

Born with a cunt

Donna Barber

Contents

About the author

About this book

Introduction

Section A Nature and Life

Naturalism and Humanism

Humans and the Animal Kingdom

True and False Morality

Towards a naturalistic morality

Right and wrong in the natural world

Love and its origins

The nature of love

Men and women and their attitudes to love

The origins of society and the family

Polyandry

The myth of the matriarchy

Bringing up children

Domestic discipline

Marriage

Arranged marriages

Reforms to the marriage ceremony

Divorce

Separation

Prostitution

Domestic violence

The culture of entitlement

Welfare sluts

What kind of roles should we have?

Fairness and naturalism

Section B On the Nature of Being Female

The Nature of Being Female - Part One

The Nature of Being Female - Part Two

Cuntishness and intelligence

Intelligence in females

On the word cunt

Having a cunt and being a cunt

More on what it means to be born female

More reasons why women are inferior

Man, the giver of life; woman the vessel that contains it

Personality and Personhood - Part One

Personality and Personhood - Part Two

Why do girls have tits?

Talking about our arses

Why every girl should learn to be a good cocksucker

Enjoying rape: a woman's point of view

Why rape is a gift we should welcome and cherish:

Why is "rape" different?

Are women who report being "raped" evil?

Is 'consent' relevant to sexual activity?

The unimportance of a woman's consent

Reforming the rape laws

Gender Roles - Part One

Gender Roles - Part Two

Equality under the Law

Fixing the gender gap

Male empowerment and female disempowerment

Civil 'Rights' and Females

Towards a reformed society

Chivalry and gender etiquette

Feminism, cuntism and cuntishness

Section C A study of some key feminist thinkers

Simone de Beauvoir

Betty Friedan

Hannah Gavron

Some general thoughts on the change from liberal feminism to radical feminism

Second Wave Feminism

Valerie Solanas

Kate Millett

Section D Further Reading

Books

Articles

Websites

About the author

I am a married woman with four children. My last three were conceived with my Husband; my eldest was not. My first child, my eldest daughter, was conceived as the result of rape and, as you'll see, that event had a profound effect on my life and my thinking.

I was born and raised in the East End of London and though I haven't lived there since the year 2000, as the saying goes, 'you can take the girl out of the East End but you can't take the East End out of the girl!'

I'm very happily married although my marriage would seem very strange to many people.

I was born in London in 1981 and lived there until I was 18 years old. Since then I've lived in the English countryside and I much prefer my rural existence to life in the big city.

Nature has taught me a lot about the world and I honestly believe that my philosophy of life is more in tune with nature and nature's way than the alternatives.

About this book:

In Born with a cunt I've gathered together my rambling thoughts and experiences on a range of subjects.

Mostly they're concerned with what it is to be a female but I also talk on wider issues such as politics, religion, philosophy, science and sociology. I'll focus on issues like rape, domestic violence, crime and punishment, civil law, marriage, divorce, employment, women's issues and, more broadly, on what I think is wrong in society and how best to put it right. Of course, I'm not an expert in any of those fields. I'm a wife and mother and I love to write but I'm under no illusions that I'm Shakespeare or Dickens any more than I am that I'm Kant or Nietzsche or Einstein or anyone like that.

But I think I'm reasonably intelligent and I've certainly analysed life, the world around me, people, events and history with as objective an eye as I can manage.

I've tried to look at the world as it is and even though I've also gone on to say how I think it should be obviously the way it is now is what I and everyone else must deal with.

Many, perhaps most, of my ideas, will be unpopular, shocking and will make a lot of people very angry with me. I've become used to being told I must be a troll, a satirist, a fake, a man pretending to be a woman and so on.

Of course, I'm not; I'm a biological woman who has given birth to four children and even if what I say is totally opposed to the fashionable feminist nonsense that's not because I'm a wind-up merchant or poseur.

Yes, at times I enjoy playing Devil's Advocate. Yes, at times I go in for satire.

But ultimately satire and even Devil's Advocacy is a way of highlighting a deeper truth and though the methods I use might seem flippant sometimes I truly believe in the thoughts I've put forward in this book.

Many of the thoughts I've written in here have been posted online on various blogs, forums and groups that I run or belong to. Many are entirely new and this is their first appearance in the public domain.
Introduction

I suppose I ought to begin by explaining why I've chosen this challenging, even provocative, title for my collection of thoughts, reflections, meditations on life experiences and so on.

Other than the obvious motive of trying to grab the reader's attention by using shock tactics, the reason is simple and yet fundamental.

I am a female; I was born with a cunt.

That fact of biology defines me and determines me just as it does every other female.

Over the years I've been slowly evolving radically different ideas on the structure of society in general and particularly in terms of male/female relationships and in terms of male and female sexuality.

Of course, I've been influenced in my thinking by many other people, dead and alive. I've also reacted against many influential thinkers.

What I've tried to do over the years is to draw together any insights from other people and my own slowly evolving thoughts and my own life experiences.

The result is the essays collected in this book.

I'm sure some people will be angered, disgusted and shocked by what I say. Some will accuse me of being mentally ill, a fake or at least a satirist. Well, I'm not a fake and though I admit to being satirical at times that's a method I sometimes use to make a point. It doesn't mean that I don't believe what I say because I very much do.

Hopefully some at least of my ideas may be worthwhile and may help in a small way towards realising my dream of making the world a better place - even though my ideas on exactly what that would mean, especially for women, will be highly unpopular with many readers. Feminists of course will want to burn me at the stake but then as they subscribe to a view of the world that's anti-life through and through I wouldn't expect anything else from them. Hopefully my readers - some of them at least - may be more open-minded and more willing to listen to my radical and unorthodox ideas on life.

Section A: Nature and Life

I'll begin by looking at how human beings fit into the world of nature. All too often we tend to forget that humans are animals and that we are, whether or not we like it, part of the world of nature and the animal kingdom. I've made that realisation the centrepiece of my own ideas about the world, both as it is and as I'd like it to be.

Naturalism and humanism

When you come down to it, every religion, philosophy, ideology or whatever what you want to call your belief system comes down to a choice between two basic ways of looking at the world. Sure, the content of what they say is different but the approach is always one or the other.

All ways of looking at the world come down in the end to one of two principles. One is the idea of naturalism which sees biology as being the determining factor in life. The other is humanism, which sees cultural norms as the defining factor.

Feminism, especially radical feminism, is committed firmly to the humanist line. Like all humanist philosophies, it thinks we can somehow escape the consequences of our animal nature. To them, female liberation - whatever they mean by that idea, and there are huge differences among feminists on what that means - is as mystical and absolute as salvation to a religious believer. Feminists claim that there's no such thing as human nature, only a kind of plasticine dough that is moulded purely by cultural forces. Men and women are the same and our anatomical and biological differences don't define us. Only cultural norms make us what we are and assign us our place in the world.

Naturalism sees things differently. Humans are animals and liberation, salvation, progress and the other comforting myths we use to try to comfort ourselves are only mirages. We deceive ourselves if we think we are somehow outside the natural world and can overcome its physical laws.

Sex and gender, if you look at them from a naturalistic perspective, are completely governed by biology. In our bodies, you can see the difference at its most basic. The male sex organ is convex and thrusts. The female sex organ is concave and receptive. Even the sperm are shaped like little torpedoes and "invade" the vagina, while the ova is a spherical egg welcoming its penetration and fertilisation.

Even the most fanatical rad fems don't (at least yet) deny that there are physical differences between men and women. What they deny is that there are any psychological or sociological effects of these differences, except the ones that come out of purely cultural ideas.

In essence, feminism claims that (except in purely anatomical terms) men and women are identical. The idea of "sameness" (Lenin actually advocated what he described as "sexual sameness") replaces the idea of individuality and personality.

In the same way - although this misuse of language predates feminism - "discrimination" changed its original meaning from evaluation, sorting out, analysing and so on, into a synonym for "hatred," "prejudice" and "unfairness."

Equality is not sameness any more than difference is discrimination in the negative sense of the word. Feminists argue fiercely among themselves about how applicable the concept of equality is to feminism and the advocates of men's rights are also prone to make the mistake of thinking that equality means sameness. So, for instance, men's rights advocates demand that "women's' studies" should be paralleled by "men's studies," that "women-only spaces" should be paralleled by "men-only spaces." And so on and so on.

It's not so much that they're positively wrong (and, as you'll find out soon, when I use the word "wrong" I generally mean it in a factual or logical sense of the word rather than a moral one) but that they're confusing effects and symptoms with the fundamental misjudgements.

Our bodies belong in the real world and the idea that men and women are different in other ways and not just anatomically is an obvious fact of life. Our anatomy and biology are crucial factors in forming our character.

In a way, the feminists are making the same kind of mistake that Lysenko and his Marxist biology did. Just as he denied the importance of genetics, so feminists deny the importance of biology. Since around the 1950s - when feminism began to spring to prominence - the very idea of "sexual polarity" - that men and women are different in their sexuality and in the very core of their psychology - is regarded as some kind of primitive superstition. The idea that it's biology rather than our culture that determines how we are and how we behave is dismissed out of hand either as "pre-scientific thinking" or "patriarchal attitudes."

The strange thing is that numerous experiments have been conducted with babies and that they invariably show that boys and girls, from the earliest period of their life, consistently display different attitudes and behaviour. Not only that, but neurology, DNA and other biological evidence also shows a consistent pattern of different attitudes and behaviour in males and females irrespective of their upbringing and cultural influences.

That, of course, is a fact that doesn't fit in with the politically correct theories of feminism so the evidence that disproves their cosy claims is simply dismissed. In fact, they are the ones who are displaying "pre-scientific thinking" and "matriarchal attitudes" rather than being genuinely concerned with truth. The inability of feminists to accept unpleasant facts that contradict their cosy little theories is one of their most infuriating habits. They always go for dogma over facts whenever there's a conflict between the two.

Humans and the animal kingdom

Let's return to the broader context of naturalism and humanism. Naturalism recognises that humans belong to the animal kingdom and that for all our veneer of sophistication, the edifice of "manners" and the rest of our cultural accretions, we are animals and our nature is and will always be primarily an animal nature.

Now if you look at the natural world what do we see? The survival of the fittest, the strong preying on and/or dominating the weak, the hard struggle for existence. We see (overall - some animals are different) that polygamy rather than monogamy is the norm. We see that the alpha male - I'll write a lot about them in the "human" sections of my book - is selfish, brutal, domineering and has a harem of females that he impregnates and keeps under control and that he regularly fights off challenges to his supremacy from other alpha males who want to muscle in on his territory.

That's the reality of life in the natural world and fundamentally humans are no different. We have wars, murders, rapes, and fights and so on and the whole idea by humanists to try and make out that our behaviour is somehow morally wrong is just crazy.

It's nature's way and that's how the world is - the human world every bit as much as the animal kingdom.

In the natural world, sex isn't about "consent" or "love" or respect or even "affection." It's a simple biological urge - the strongest urge in human beings - the desire to fuck. Now it's true that in most animals fucking only takes place when the female is in heat and then the males pursue her and fuck her and, to be frank, rape her. Because human females have a menstrual cycle as well as an oestrus cycle we can be fucked all the year round which is unusual. Of course, that uniquely female cycle also means that we can be not just fucked but raped all the year round too.

But there's no more reason why fucking among humans should have any more to do with the ideas of "consent," "love," "affection" and "respect" than they do among other animals. Rape and polygamy are the norms among other animals, so why should we expect humans to be any different? Why shouldn't rape and polygamy be the norm among humans?

I'll deal with both issues later in my book when I discuss the issues of rape and sexuality in more specific ways. But fundamentally there's nothing morally "wrong" with rape or polygamy and the attempts of Puritans and feminists to try and pretend that there is just show their total ignorance of the way the natural world works. Human nature is as much part of nature as any other form of life on the planet. It's arrogant and stupid to pretend that somehow we have a special status that means that the normal natural laws don't apply to us. Of course they do!

I'm married with four children and my husband doesn't love or even respect me in the slightest. Why should he? I'm just there for him to fuck and I accept that and I know my proper place in the world is to be fucked by him and to be available to him for fucking whenever he wants me. In his eyes (and in my own too) I'm just his property and I exist to be fucked by him. Questions of "consent" or "love" or "affection" or "respect" don't come into it at all. Why should he treat me any differently from any other property he owns? That's all I am, after all. That's what I was put on this earth for - to be fucked

And it's completely natural and there's nothing morally "wrong" about it! Female animals are owned by their male masters, fucked by them and generally part of his harem of females who were put on earth to serve him and be used by him.

The animal kingdom is a world of rape, polygamy, violence and killing. The human world is no different. We have just developed more technically advanced methods of being violent and murderous, that's all.

So, like it or not, that's nature's way. It isn't only feminists who find that simple truth hard to accept. Humanists are also in denial about the reality of the natural order. Most religions are also humanist in their belief that men and women can achieve salvation. This belief, like the myth of "progress," is nothing more than wishful thinking. Human nature is the same as animal nature and it's silly to pretend otherwise. We really do need to have a complete and fundamental re-evaluation of all our existing systems of "morality," putting them on a proper basis that reflects the natural order of things rather than the present mixture of wishful thinking, sentimentality and prejudice that they are now.

True and false morality

Let's talk about morality, conventions, belief systems, laws and the various other ways that humans have used to try and avoid the consequences of our status in the natural world. They invented morality, religion, ideology and laws to try and prettify the world and (at least in their own minds) somehow make it a kinder, fairer and more compassionate place than it is.

All of them are based on a fundamental fallacy; that somehow humans can "rise above" their animal nature and become more than simply one among many of the species inhabiting our planet. Every system of morality is an attempt to control human behaviour and to make it less like the natural world and more like an artificial construction

Progress, like salvation and humanist "morality", is a convenient myth. It's a secular vision of heaven and non-religious humanists talk it up a lot.

Sure, you can find technological change - not always for the better - but the idea that "morality" or even "society" has "made progress" is doubtful.

Technological progress has allowed us to kill more people and at a faster rate than in less technically advanced societies. Are wars any less common than before? Of course not.

Torture, genocide and warfare have become more advanced and more common than they were. Crime figures, especially for rape and crimes of violence, are up in most countries. Terrorism by various groups has killed at least tens of thousands of people.

What does "morality" say about all this? It holds up its hands in horror and says, but these things happen because people are behaving immorally. Well, actually, that's just not true; these things happen because people are behaving morally.

To be fair, humanists don't always see morality in the same way. Some think that what matters is the intention, others the motive, others the results of an action that decide on whether something is good or bad.

It isn't hard to knock all three of these theories down. Let's take terrorism as an obvious example. Were the French Resistance, the IRA, the Tamil Tigers, Al-Qaida and ISIS murdering scumbags? Does their motivation make their actions better or worse? All of them use or used violence in the hope it would achieve the results they wanted - which, by the way, in their eyes were morally good.

Morally speaking, how can a humanist view the actions of terrorists any differently from those of a bank robber who shoots a cashier or policeman dead during a robbery? He too used violence to achieve the result he wanted. The difference between terrorism and simple crime is wafer thin.

So, motive and intention don't matter a damn. And it's no better if you judge by results.

Logically, why should the law treat manslaughter as a lesser crime than murder? Why should it even treat an accidental death any differently? The results are just the same and the victims are just as dead.

So, what humanists offer is a meaningless and desperate attempt to justify condemning other people. And, of course, humanist morality is far more obsessed with "sin" than it is with "virtue."

Naturalist morality asks only one question. Does this action help in my survival? If it does, then it's good. If not, it's bad.

Naturalism is logical, consistent and totally unsentimental. It faces up to the truth of the world, the way things are.

When humanists talk about morality they mean altruism, benevolence, love, compassion, tolerance, fairness, equality and perhaps freedom and respecting others.

Does the world look like that? Does history show that sort of behaviour as the norm?

Of course not. It shows war, revolution, famine, violence, rape, torture, genocide and so on.

Why? Because the real oppressors of the world are the ones who believe in what they call "morality." They will happily oppress, torture and kill anyone who doesn't conform to their "moral standards."

Morality has become a poison destroying the world. In the name of the common good, a God of love, an ethnic group, a patch of land, people are routinely murdered or oppressed in other ways by those who enforce their "morality" upon others.

This view of the world isn't just distorted bullshit.

It's worse than that.

If you look at life honestly rather than through the distorting lens of "morality" you see in the end that "right" and "wrong" have nothing to do with the fake ideas of "good" and "evil" that have been rammed down our throats for thousands of years.

The truth is that what's right is - in most cases - what's presented by the moralists as "evil" and what's wrong is what they call "good."

Yes, you read that right. Thousands of years of sentimental moralizing have been designed to create a world that's morally wrong rather than one that's morally right.

I'll explain more about this in the next section where I show how we can and should create a morality based on naturalist principles rather than humanist ones.

Towards a naturalistic morality

We've already seen how illogical, inconsistent and untrue to life humanism is. Another fundamental mistake it makes is when it keeps banging on about choice and free will.

Humanism says we have the freedom to choose whether we do good or bad things.

If we do something they condemn it's entirely our fault for choosing to do wrong.

(Generally, they do admit that people can make mistakes but not on the "big moral questions.")

Life just isn't like that. We can't choose when and where we were born. We can't choose our parents. We can't choose the DNA we're born with. We can't choose the language of the country of our birth. We can't choose to be born clever or stupid, strong or weak, boy or girl. We can't choose to be born into a rich or poor family.

None of these things are our choice. All of them are just luck (good or bad.) But the effects of these things on our lives are huge and may well determine how our lives will pan out.

And as we go on in life we're forced again and again to do things we don't want to do. Parents, schools, social conventions, the law all try to mould us so we become even less independent than we were. Later work, sex, relationships, children, all govern huge parts of our life and we're pretty much helpless to do anything about them.

Humans in general have become obsessed with the idea of choice. Whether it's consumerism, promiscuity for the sake of variety, praising or condemning things or people, it's the same old snake-oil. They have all been conned into thinking they have free choice.

Humanists reckon we have consciousness, reason, self-control and all that stuff.

Well, that's another question which I'll talk about a bit later. But what we know is that we hardly ever choose to do anything after a lot of brain work and soul searching. We don't just sit down and think about what we want to do. Mostly, we just get on with it and do it.

And why do we do what we do? We do it out of lust, greed, vanity, hatred, fear and power. Mostly, anyway.

So how do we explain the "positive" emotions - love, kindness, generosity, modesty? Are they just illusions - just stupid sentimentality that we should bin completely?

Is love just a sugar-coated covering for lust? Is modesty fake or a sign of an inferiority complex? Is generosity just showing off? Is kindness something that feeds our ego?

These are difficult questions and I'll come back to them later after I've written a lot more about the difference between naturalism and humanism and the very different ideas about right and wrong they have.

Right and wrong in the natural world

Morality, like law, is a system of social control. It tries to make human beings behave in a non-animal way and so go against their basic, instinctive, natural and biological nature. When we act in accordance with our natural being, do we act selfishly or unselfishly? Are we kind or cruel (or at least indifferent?) Are we polite or rude? Are we considerate or inconsiderate? Do we give or take? Do we put our own interests first or the interests of others?

The bottom line is that existence is about survival. Survival of the fittest. It means that the strong kill, oppress and rule over the weak. Our natural instinct is to act selfishly rather than unselfishly, to be cruel or indifferent rather than kind, to be rude rather than polite, to behave inconsiderately rather than considerately, to take rather than give and to put our own interests before the interests of others.

That's nature's way and it ought to be our way too!

Our human nature is part of our animal nature, part of our place in nature. If we act in ways that are against our basic nature, obviously that behaviour is wrong. To put it in a way that will probably shock people, if we act "morally" (I mean of course if we follow the ideas of morality that humanists/religious people put forward) then we're acting against our own basic nature and therefore behaving immorally.

It's simply wrong for us to act against our basic nature.

What is the purpose of life, when you get to the bottom line? Why are we here?

Survival is what it's all about, Alfie.

And our survival is and must be the basic core of our nature.

So, by acting in accordance with our nature - by making our survival the number one priority in our life - we are acting morally. We are doing the right thing if we do that and if we act "morally" in the humanist/religious sense of the word we are doing the wrong thing.

If it helps us to survive, anything goes. Anything that helps our survival or gives us any kind of an advantage in life is moral. Anything that hinders our survival or puts us at any sort of disadvantage in life is immoral.

That's the bottom line when it comes to real morality - what's right is what helps in our survival and what's wrong is what hinders us.

Altruism asks us to put ourselves at a disadvantage and to hinder our survival.

That's the main (but not the only) reason why altruism is immoral.

We are animals; in the animal world survival is everything. Altruism doesn't exist in the animal kingdom. It's about the survival of the fittest, the weakest going to the wall and being preyed on or killed by other animals.

We are no different in our natural emotions. It's only the poisonous propaganda of altruistic morality that's made us think we should behave differently.

The moral way to behave if we follow naturalism rather than humanism is quite different. The strong rule, exploit, use and kill the weak. It's the natural destiny of life among humans just as it is among every other animal for the strong to oppress the weak and for the weak to serve them and be used by the stronger for their pleasure or service.

Altruism wants the strong to protect the weak; naturalism wants the strong to be protected from the weak and for the strong to exploit and oppress the weak. It's nature's way and it's the morally right way to behave.

Naturalism begins by recognising that we are not some privileged species but just another animal. Because we are animals, our virtues should be animal virtues.

Animals are motivated by the desire for survival. They want food, try to escape enemies, want sex and (most important of all) follow their instincts and desires.

They don't live by rules, moral codes or some "higher purpose." Animals don't have ideals, shame, ambition and all the rest of the silly nonsense humans have adopted. They just "go with the flow," following their instincts and acting spontaneously.

Humans should live like animals. Instead of faffing about worrying about "moral standards," "public opinion" and all that crap, we should just do what "comes naturally."

Love and its origins

Humanists basically believe that human beings are essentially "good," "rational," have "choice" and "free will" and are "individuals" and that we can "rise above" nature and somehow enjoy privileged status. Of course, it's silly to deny that humans can reason but how much of our life involves genuine thinking rather than following our unconscious and natural desires is another matter.

Mostly, when we take decisions we don't weigh them up so much as feel what would be most likely to benefit us. So, even though a certain amount of thought is going on, basically it's our instinctive desires that are driving our decisions. And anyone who lives in the real world rather than some remote ivory tower where only intellectuals live knows that our instincts and emotions are far stronger than any rational process in deciding on our actions.

I'll discuss the whole issues of choice and free will later in this book but for now I want to look at a different aspect of life.

Up to now I've mainly been concentrating on what's wrong with humanist "morality." I've given a few pointers towards the positive side of naturalism but I'll go into more details about that in the next section of the book.

Right now, I want to analyse various feelings and actions that most people think of as being "good." I won't criticise them as such but what I'll do is try and explain how and why they play such a big part in our lives and thinking. I'm going to analyse and trace the origins of various emotions and try to show how and why, on a naturalist way of looking at the world, they come about and influence us so much.

Let's start with love. Obviously, the root of love - I'm not talking about friendship, parent-child love or any other kind of love without a sexual component - is the desire to fuck and to reproduce. Without that, all species would die out. It's the most primal of all instincts except food and it grows out of that. This is biology, a simple fact.

Even among human animals the procreative glands swell in both sexes and make the female "lay eggs." Menstruation in girls is essentially the same phenomenon as "rut" in female animals. At that time girls ovulate and the Grauffian follicles swell and burst. Girls, like other mammals, are "laying eggs" during their menstruation.

Sex is easy to understand. It's a primal instinct almost everyone feels. How does love evolve out of sex? Why do we feel, not just the capacity for love, but even the need for love?

There are some obvious places to start when we're looking at the origins of love. I'll briefly go through them before looking at them in more detail.

One is the theory that love comes about because of the bond between mother and child. She carried him or her inside her, gives birth, feeds, nourishes and to a considerable extent trains and educates the child. The mother-child link is of course one of a total dependency by the infant on the mother, lasting for years in a practical sense and a lifetime emotionally.

Another psychological explanation is almost mystical in a way but equally plausible and true to life. Love is the desire of a separate self to find completeness in "the other." It's as if we're two halves that were separated at birth and need to find each other again.

Another view is that love represents a kind of business transaction in which one party, usually the female, gives up a part of their independence in return for protection, care and support, generally by the male.

A related idea is that love is an unconscious sort of sexual selection, where beautiful girls and handsome men are preferred. So too are successful, strong, wealthy, famous, clever or men and women who are in some way "above" the average.

There's also the view the love is just an illusion. The reality is that love is just a cover for lust and that what we really feel is sexual desire. Romance, affection, all the trappings of love are just attempts to prettify naked lust. Radical feminists have argued that for a long time – 'love is a trick of the patriarchy' is one of their slogans – and radical masculists also share it but for different reasons. Just as the rad fems think that love is a trick to enslave women, so the rad mascs think it's a trick to enslave men.

I think there's a lot of truth in all these theories. The need to procreate for the survival of the species is obvious. Lust is, probably because of that biological need, one of the strongest human urges.

On the other hand, fucking isn't just about trying to procreate. If it was we wouldn't have post-menopausal fucking, birth control, abortion or gay and lesbian sex. It's obvious with gays and lesbians that pregnancy can't come about from their sexual relationships. So, though the desire to procreate plays a big part in fucking among the young, it's not the whole story.

And love isn't just about the physical side of sex. Even when we're talking about sexual love. Genuine affection, respect, trust, caring, all play a part. Especially after the early and often frenzied stages of a relationship, those feelings can often play the biggest and most important part in a loving relationship.

Just as fucking isn't only about procreation, love isn't just about fucking. So, the theory that love is just a prettified version of lust doesn't explain it. Lust nearly always comes into love but just as you can feel lust without any kind of love, so you can feel love on a totally non-lustful level. So, it's not actually false but it's a bit simplistic.

The sexual selection theory has a lot going for it. On the other hand, people do fall in love with ordinary, poor, unattractive and weak people. So once again it's not false but it's a long way off from being the whole truth.

The business transaction theory is partly true; a lot of people do in a way treat marriage and relationships in that way. But there are so many counter-examples that, once again, it's not anywhere near the whole truth.

To me the theory that love originates in the bond between mother and child is very credible. As a mother of four children I genuinely feel that bond and even though not every mother feels it to the same extent and some even grow to hate and reject their children, overall it rings true to me.

So does the idea of the "separated selves" seeking love to join two broken halves. That also rings true to me and seems to be very much a part of life. Loneliness is one of the most terrible things in human existence and love is the most wonderful umbrella against the freezing hail and snow of loneliness. To be lonely means to be lacking love.

Love is, in a way, one of life's great mysteries. You can't "choose" to love someone; you either feel love or you don't. You can't "choose" to stop loving them either. It either happens or it doesn't.

So, it's obvious that love, like lust, is a fundamental instinct. To me the idea that it springs from the mother-child bond is highly convincing. So too is the idea that love is a way for us to overcome our natural fear of loneliness.

Love can be explained on a naturalistic theory at least as well as on the humanistic and altruistic ones. For me, the naturalist explanations are far more convincing.

The nature of love

I've talked at some length about what I feel is the origin of love. Now I'll look at the nature of love.

What, in the end, does it mean to love someone? Love is, basically, a state of emotional dependency upon another person. It springs in my opinion from the bond established with the mother and child in early infancy. If such a bond isn't created, then the child grows up with a distorted nature and feels resentment and hatred.

Mothers too can reject their children. It's no accident that most children are murdered by their mother rather than by their father.

Girls are biologically designed to be mothers. That's why we menstruate, get pregnant and give birth. We are naturally designed to be nurturers of children and adults though in a different way.

This bond between mother and baby isn't a sexual one. Of course, the baby gets pleasure from being breastfed, changed, washed, cleaned and nurtured. I think it's a clear duty for a mother to breastfeed her children and to continue doing so even after they are regularly eating solid food. I breastfed my children until they were five years old and I intend to do the same with my youngest who is only a year old now.

Yes, the female breast is an erotic object and the nipples are one of the key erogenous zones in a girl's body. But to try to reduce the bond of nurturing between mother and child simply to a kind of sexual one is just plain mistaken. It's about love and caring and about wanting the child to grow into an adult.

The bond between mother and child is deeper and more intimate than any other. We were one being once, before the infant's birth out of our nurturing womb separated us. This is the primal source of love, the utter dependency of the baby upon his or her mother.

She is not only the source of satisfying his or her physical needs. She also stimulates his or her mind and pours out her love upon the infant.

A baby at this primal state cannot give love or any other tender emotion back even if they wanted to. He or she is a passive recipient of mother's love. The physical separation of body from body has taken place but emotionally the child is part of the mother who birthed it.

Of course, this process involves a dependency that it is the mother's duty to break. It's not just on the physical level that children need to be weaned. Psychologically the mother must accept that her child needs to develop into an independent rather than a dependent person.

As in the act of giving birth the mother physically expels the child from her body, so too this birth trauma is a kind of psychological expulsion. The mother pushes the baby away from her and the umbilical cord is severed.

Psychologically too the mother must gradually push the child away from her. She must show him or her that others deserve her love as well as the child. The natural end of a mother's love for her child is an ever-increasing process of rejection to allow the child to begin developing independence.

Mothers are often accused of being "clingy" and "possessive" both in terms of their children and in terms of relationships in general. That's partly true but frankly it's understandable. When you've carried another living being inside you for nine months, felt the trauma of his or her birth out of your cunt, let them suck your tits and drink your milk, it makes the bond you feel so deep, so physically ever-present, that it's not surprising if sometimes mothers react in an inappropriately possessive way towards their children and even their boyfriends, partners and husbands.

Fathers are always more "distant" in terms of their relationship with their children. Of course, they can do almost everything a mother can except get pregnant, give birth and breastfeed the infants. But that physical bond will always make for a deeper and more permanent kind of bond between mother and child.

Because of this link and because girls are biologically destined to become mothers themselves, daughters will always have a more "tender," "loving," "affectionate" and "nurturing" side to their nature than boys. Boys should be trained from the beginning to look upon the mother as a provider of services - food, cleanliness, clothing, attention - and to understand that their own future role in life is not motherhood but fatherhood. That brings with it very different responsibilities and develops the character of boys in entirely different ways from those of girls. At least, that's what happens if you follow the naturalistic way rather than the humanist approach of trying to reduce both boys and girls into a kind of amorphous and androgynous monstrosity like feminists do.

This is the point where the "nature or nurture" argument gets started. How much of what defines a woman is down to cultural circumstances and how much to biology?

Feminists, especially rad fems like Simone de Beauvoir and her disciples, believe that culture is absolutely the only determining factor. In their eyes biology proves nothing and the idea that a female is different from a male in any way other than her body parts is called "male chauvinist prejudice," "patriarchal attitudes" or even "misogyny."

Only a fool or bigot would deny that social and cultural factors are hugely important Then again, surely that's also true about people who deny the importance of biology? Aren't they being foolish or bigoted?

I'm going to come back to the idea - well, the fact - of the physical and emotional separation of mother and child at birth. Our bodies follow a natural rhythm of a four-week ovulation cycle, a period of pregnancy followed by birth and the nourishing of the child who has been expelled from the house/prison of the womb.

Not one of these deep bonds, feelings and experiences are possible to men. Women are permanently linked to the natural cycles of life in a way that men will never be.

It's no accident that feminists who are mothers in a loving relationship are much less likely to hate and despise men. Almost always it's the childless women and lesbians who, if they've ever had a child, chose to be artificially inseminated. Their lack of understanding of love in its most primal and important aspect is both tragic and a cause of lots of unnecessary hatred and suffering.

In a way, we see in life many differences of character, personality, attitudes and behaviour between mothers and childless women. It's probably too strong to call childless heterosexual women "masculine" though many of them are. Among lesbians it's almost always obvious that they show "masculine" traits, often to the level of caricature. Gay men and transgendered males often show an equally exaggerated "femininity."

None of that is in any way an attack on gays, lesbians or transgendered people. I've got no problem with consenting adults who prefer same-sex relationships.

Can couples like that love each other? Yes, I think so. But their love is quite different from the love between mother and child.

I'll talk about the kind of love I think theirs is in another section. Now, I want to talk about heterosexual love. I particularly want to consider how different that is between men and women.

There are some lines in a poem by Kingsley Amis which I like:

'Man's love is of man's life a thing apart:

Girls aren't like that'

A woman in love is quite different from a man who loves a woman. Her love is a complete surrender of herself to the man she loves. Yes, because she is an individual, she may show her love differently from other women.

Some are passionate, demonstrative, loving the physicality of touch and the sense of melting into union during sex. Some are shy, reserved, less eager to be touched and view sex as a necessary part of love rather than a pleasurable experience. With some, love is a forest fire. With others, it's a tiny flashlight. Some have the tragedy of harbouring a secret love that they don't have the courage to declare.

Even so, with all these differences, a woman who loves will always place more emphasis on her love for the man than he will for her. It's not that man can't love women but that the emotion of love plays a much smaller part in a man's life than it does in the lives of women.

The need for love - to love and be loved - plays a huge part in the life of a heterosexual woman, especially if she's of child-bearing age. It's no accident that girls and women are always asking boyfriends, partners and husband - "do you love me?" Men don't spend hours, days, week, months or years agonising over that question or even asking it. A man knows how he feels and doesn't need constant reassurance.

In the next section, I'll look at why men and women are so different in their attitudes to love and why it affects them both so differently. These attitudes and behaviour go way beyond any cultural factors. They're rooted in the bedrock of biology.

Men and women and their attitudes to love

A woman in love with a man wants to surrender herself to him, to be "his." A man in love with a woman wants to possess her, to make her "his."

It's obvious even in this insight that the natural role of a woman is to be submissive towards a man and the natural role of a man is to dominate a woman. There's nothing abusive about a dominant man anything more than there's anything demeaning about a submissive woman.

Just as in sex the woman receives and the man gives, so in life man "attacks." He builds houses, dams rivers, clears forests, digs roads and so on. Men dominate the world of science and technology. Men think rationally, mathematically, analytically. Men are aggressive, mobile and in a way hostile towards nature itself.

Women are in harmony with nature, even their bodies following natural cycles and rhythms. Just as man uses reason and seeks mastery, women are more emotional, intuitive and receptive.

Margaret Mead was an anthropologist who certainly regarded social and cultural factors as hugely important in the role of women and was a strong supporter of the feminist movement. Even so, after many years of observing men and women, she still wrote these words in her book "Male and Female:"

'We may well find that there are certain fields such as the physical sciences, mathematics and instrumental music, in which men by virtue of their sex, as well as by virtue of their qualities as specially gifted human beings, will always have the razor edge of extra gift which makes all the difference, and while women easily follow where men lead, men will always make the new discoveries.'

There's nothing "rational" about love. Love is a state of being, a total experience. For a man, love is never dominant. It is a part of him but only one among many aspects of his life. Love will never consume a man's being in the way it does a woman.

We see this difference between boys and girls even in infancy. The boy sees his mother as a thing to be used, a provider of milk and food, a cleaner, a cook - basically, as a servant.

Basically, the role of a mother for boys is to be a kind of "servant." It's her job to feed them, clean them, clothe them and minister to their needs and wishes.

Girls also look on the mother in that way to begin with. But if the mother trains her daughters properly they'll soon learn that their own future role in life is to be like her. A mother should raise her daughters to see themselves primarily as future wives and mothers. She should train her boys to lead and command and her daughters to serve and obey.

With both boys and girls there are two stages in the development of their sexual natures. One occurs around the age of four when genital desires arise though at that stage they can only be fulfilled at the fantasy level. During this "abortive puberty," as Freud named it, two things take place. One is the growth of the Oedipus Complex in boys and the Electra Complex in girls. In this phase a sexual desire for the parent of the opposite gender arises. Eventually the sexual conflicts and tensions created by these desires are, in most cases, "transferred" by the process of "secondary identification."

At this point the boy begins to admire and copy his father while the girl does the same with her mother. Through this process boys learn their male role and girls learn their female one.

To a feminist, this normal and healthy process of role model adaptation is wrong. They look on femininity as a lack, an inferiority, a defect. "I'm not a man!" they scream, sometimes literally.

This phenomenon has been observed, analysed and theorised about by psychologists as different as Freud, Adler, Jung, Rank and Suttie. Freud simplistically reduces it to "penis envy." Adler called it "the masculine protest." Other psychologists have called it "phallic aggression."

Now (as I intend to prove later in this book) the fact that a girl has a cunt rather than a prick does have a deep and lasting psychological effect on her. But there are two ways of dealing with this reality.

One is the humanist and feminist approach which minimises or even denies the biological consequences of having a cunt. Girls who adopt that attitude become aggressive, dominant, rude, self-centred, ambitious and, frankly, end up lacking any empathy for others. Love they see as an illusion, a "trick of the patriarchy" or at best, a sort of mild companionship.

The naturalist way is to accept and embrace the consequences of having a cunt. Girls who follow this path want to be wives and mothers, are happy to be gentle, submissive, polite, put others first, be unassuming and surrender themselves in love.

Boys, by contrast, need to accept their future role. They must learn to be strong, independent, forceful, dominant, ambitious and protective.

In the next section, I'll talk about the origins of society and the family. There are quite a few theories on that subject and hardly any of them agree with each other. In my opinion nearly all of them are just plain wrong.

The origins of society and the family

The origins of human society have been argued about for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. In the West, it was generally believed for around a thousand years that it all started off with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and that their children went off and founded various civilisations. Humanist myths about the origins of society came about with the Renaissance and one of the most influential of them was the idea of the "social contract," sometimes called the "social compact." Under the influence of Darwinism, many "evolutionary" theories have been put forward. The most influential of them have been the "man the mighty hunter" idea proposed by Robert Ardrey and the related but not quite the same hypothesis of the "naked ape" put forward by Desmond Morris.

Feminists, typically, have constructed their own versions of human origins. Elaine Morgan in her book The Descent of Woman seizes on an idea by Alister Hardy about the beginning of human life being in the sea. She goes on from that to construct a whole theory about how and why humans are violent, how society arose and so on. Other feminists, such as Merlin Stone, try to use the fact that Mother Goddesses have been worshipped as evidence that once upon a time, in the good old days, the Earth was ruled by women. Society was matriarchal and there was peace on earth and prosperity all around. Then, by various nefarious tricks, patriarchal men destroyed this Golden Age and replaced it with war, rape and patriarchal oppression.

Somewhere in between the feminist and Darwinian explanations comes the Marxist one put forward by Engels. Although Marxists often like to pretend that Engels invented it, he stole most of his ideas from the American sociologist Lewis Morgan. His three-stage account of history suited the 'dialectical' system of Marxism so it was quickly seized on as a basis for constructing a theory about the evolution of human society.

Engels, following on from Morgan and giving his ideas a Marxist orientation, believed in a state of "primitive communism" which was basically a matriarchal society without private property.

Other accounts of the origin of human society are the theory of original promiscuity, the theory of original monogamy, and the "multi-factor theory" that others favour.

Only religious fundamentalists still believe in Adam and Eve (though the supporters of the Lucy theory, claiming to be evolutionists, sound no different from the religious believers!) but the other theories all have their champions.

If you analyse the animal kingdom, particularly our closest relatives, the apes, you can see evidence for and against most of the theories. Equally if you look at human society, both past and present, you can make a case in favour of most of the theories.

The theory of "original promiscuity" was fashionable for much of the nineteenth century and was supported by the "evidence" of the sexually free behaviour of tribes such as the South Sea Islanders and others. In the society of apes it's not unknown but monogamy is much more common and polygamy is also more common. Except in very small and isolated human communities, it's highly doubtful - most anthropologists have long since rejected the theory - that this stage of "original promiscuity" was ever the norm rather than an adaptation to extreme circumstances with a highly limited gene pool from which to choose.

Original monogamy is certainly typical of most birds and insects. It's also common among higher mammals though of course polygamy remains more common.

Primitive communism is IMO more of a case of wishful thinking on Engels' part than any kind of historical reality. Sure, tribes will share lots of things in common but that's a long way from any kind of "institutional" communism of the kind Engels believes they had.

Morgan's ideas that there was a clear and definable break between what he calls "savage," "barbarian" and "civilized" societies are also no longer credible. He thinks that the use of more advanced tools, like in the Bronze Age compared to the Stone Age, makes a society "develop" from "savagery" to "barbarism." That's long since been shown to be a busted flush with people using stone and metal tools side by side long after metallurgy had been mastered.

And if you believe, like Morgan and Engels, that a society's level of "civilisation" is defined by its technology, you'd have to call Hitler and Stalin more "civilised" than, say, Asoka. To a normal mind that is just ridiculous.

Before I turn to the various feminist theories I'll talk in detail about the Social Contract idea.

It first became widely known when it was put forward in 1651 by Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan. Hobbes believed that humans originally lived in what he calls "a state of nature" in which everyone was fighting everyone else and trying to overpower and kill them. He calls that a state of "war against all."

Hobbes claims that, at some unspecified point in human history, groups got together and chose one or several of them to be their leaders. In return for the "protection" from other rival groups, the followers gave up all their rights to the leader. He has only rights over them and no duties towards them besides protecting them from rival tyrants.

Though Hobbes is usually regarded as the founder of "Social Contract" theories, he was following ideas put forward by the Dutch writer Hugo Grotius. Grotius is in many ways the founder of modern liberalism. He put forward a theory, based on the idea of "natural law," that everyone had natural human rights. Grotius believed that those rights entitled him to survival and regarded society as being based on a consensus on moral issues. He felt that the law of nature meant that power and authority came from those individuals and could go back to them if the society in which they lived violated their rights. Grotius didn't mention either the idea of a Social Contract or a state of nature but he was a very influential thinker and it's certain that Hobbes knew his work and responded to it.

In the later part of the century, John Locke took up Hobbes' idea and stood it on his head. He also believed in a "state of nature" but described it as idyllic and peaceful.

Then humans came together and decided to abandon the state of nature and instead choose one or several among them to be their leader. They gave up some but not all their rights and he had a duty to protect their rights and not to violate them.

Rousseau in the eighteenth century put forward the first openly collectivist version of the Social Contract theory. It basically argued for popular sovereignty through direct rule but was also wildly inconsistent in its talk of a "leader" to direct and educate them towards what he called "the General Will." He specifically declared that "the General Will" - the "will" of the "leader" - should prevail over the will of the people, the "will of all," as he called it. His idea of the Social Contract ended up being as authoritarian as Hobbes' and he's quite rightly been called the grandfather of totalitarianism.

Basically, none of the Social Contract theories give any realistic or meaningful account of how and why human societies emerge. If the "state of nature" was as wonderful as Locke made it out to be, no one in their right minds would have wanted to give it up. If it was as bad as Hobbes said, tyranny would not have been tolerated since that would be no better than the war of all against all. Rousseau's version isn't just crazily self-contradictory but is basically yet another form of oppression.

So, all in all, none of the Social Contract theories work. Only in America do some people still take them seriously!

I'll briefly look at the "man the mighty hunter" and "naked ape" theories before discussing the various feminist ideas. Robert Ardrey is a convenient linking point because not only was he the main exponent of the "mighty hunter" theory but he was also the author of an attempt to put forward a modified "Social Contract" theory.

In his book The Social Contract, Ardrey, like he did in all his four books, put forward a series of ideas that were partly right and partly wrong. In The Social Contract he argued, rightly, that individuals are genetically unique and that their genetic traits determine what they are. These are traits that help or hinder in terms of adaptation to the environment and therefore it is not only unnatural but impossible for "equality" to exist between humans. He claimed that only by recognising the fundamental inequalities between people could a just society be founded. Ardrey complained that cultural anthropologists had treated humans as if they were outside the animal kingdom when in fact they were simply its most dominant members.

Having made that sensible and factual observation, he retreated into humanist ideology and claimed that "the vulnerable" need to be protected and that "inequality does not justify the domination of the weak by the strong." That's just not true about the natural world and it shouldn't be true about the human one either. The law of nature is that the strong dominate the weak and that the weak and vulnerable are killed, exploited, oppressed or ignored by them. That's nature's way and it ought to be our way. If you follow naturalistic principles, it's the only truly moral way to behave.

Ardrey showed in The Hunting Hypothesis the importance of hunting in defining early manhood - and he did mean "man" as opposed to "humanity." Unfortunately, his version of this idea launched off into a kind of Tarzan-type fantasy where "man the mighty hunter" was swinging from trees and hunting and not much else. The role of women was ignored or treated as just a minor part of social organisation and Elaine Morgan rightly criticised his ideas in a passage that was both witty and biting.

Desmond Morris is the main theorist of the "naked ape" and he pointed out that humans have the largest brains of primates, the biggest penis size in relation to their bodily proportions, the largest breasts in relation to the body shape - far larger than any purely milk function. Morris claims that breasts are a sexual signal to attract males and that larger breasts are more likely to attract a suitable mate. He believes that the origin of monogamy was that men who were out hunting could safely leave their wives behind without worrying that they would engage in promiscuous sex while they were away. Morris also suggested that the hairlessness of humans compared with other primates came about because it helped to increase the tactile pleasure in sex. At the time his book The Naked Ape appeared it was almost universally condemned. In hindsight, though many of his ideas don't work, there seems a lot of truth in his account of why breasts and penises developed as they did and why monogamy grew to become the norm rather than the more normal polygamy that we find among most primates.

I'll now discuss the idea that the earliest form of human society was promiscuous, with all the women in a group being freely available for sex with all the men. The ancient Greek writers Strabo and Herodotus mention a few examples of this. In the Indian poem the Mahabharata a particular Indian tribe was said to practice this custom. An ancient Chinese tradition also claims that in the earliest times women were the common property of all the men.

In more recent times, eighteenth and nineteenth century writers claimed that the inhabitants of the Andaman Islands, Tahiti, the native Americans in California, some tribes in India, the dwellers in the Ansarian mountains of Syria, the Kamilaroi in Australia and even Cossacks in Russia held their women in common and practised promiscuous sex.

None of these claims prove that the original form of human society was promiscuous or that women were held in common. Strabo's two passages on the subject don't support the idea either. In his confusion - he's obviously relating traveller's gossip - he mistakes incest for promiscuity and in the other case he confuses polygamy - more accurately, polyandry - with promiscuity.

Herodotus' short passage about the Scythians clearly refers to adultery being common among them rather than to a promiscuous holding of the women in common. The Andaman Islanders often committed adultery but their women were not held in common. The same was true of the Tahitians.

Probably the other examples given - few and far between as they are - refer either to exceptional circumstances among small and isolated groups or to a relatively free attitude towards adultery. There's hardly any evidence that supports the idea that the beginning of human society came about through "original promiscuity" and an overwhelming body of evidence that refutes that idea.

A decisive objection to the idea comes from the study of apes, our closest relatives. They are overwhelming polygamous. Some are monogamous but most are polygamous. None of them practice this "common ownership" of females. Both anthropology and zoology give the lie to the theory which is pretty much dead in the water.

In the next section, I'll talk about polyandry - the system where one woman has more than one husband - before turning to the feminist matriarchal theories. I'll leave polygamy and monogamy until last.

Polyandry

Polyandry, the situation where a woman has more than one husband, has always been a rare phenomenon. It only exists in societies with a severe shortage of females. One reason for this imbalance between the genders is female infanticide.

Another is where the females of a tribe have been sold into slavery as a more merciful alternative to killing them. This process is the origin of the dowry system, which is only a muted form of the direct sale of a female slave.

We've already seen Strabo mentioning polyandry among the Arabs. Julius Caesar also claims that the ancient Britons practised polyandry, though he offers little evidence in support of his assertion.

As late as the sixteenth century the Guanches of the Canary Islands practised polyandry. Later examples were found in New Zealand and the Marquesas Islands.

As late as the nineteenth century the Miri and Dophir tribes of Bengal were polyandrous. In the Indian mountains, near the source of the River Djemmah, polyandry was practised in the nineteenth century. The same was true in Sri Lanka.

Tibet, before the Chinese conquest, was the largest and most extensive example of polyandry. The Tibetan model, because of its extent and long duration, has tended to be regarded by cultural anthropologists as "classic polyandry."

This idea is not very likely. The Tibetan form of polyandry, like one of Strabo's examples, is what's called "fraternal polyandry.' In this system, the eldest brother marries a woman and his brothers also become her husbands. He is considered the principal husband and if he dies the next eldest brother takes his place.

Apparently, the wife was "as jealous of her conjugal rights as an Indian despot could be of the beauties who people his zenana or harem."

Some feminists have tried to see in the custom of polyandry evidence for a gynocracy or at least a matriarchal form of society. That's quite wrong. It might give a certain degree of sexual power to the wife but in every other respect it's very much a patriarchal set-up.

Some matriarchal forms of polyandry did exist. As late as the nineteenth century, the Nair tribe in Malabar practised it. The girls were married extremely young, usually between the ages of ten and twelve. Their first husband was only allowed to remain with her for up to five days and his sole purpose was to take her virginity. At the end of that time he left her. He was usually paid for this service.

After he'd gone, the Nair girl could choose any husband she wanted. These husbands were generally only married for a short time before being replaced by others. The girl could take up to twelve husbands at a time if she wanted to. Those unions were not with brothers or any other relatives, for the Nair had a definite taboo on incest.

The Nair form of polyandry is far looser than the Tibetan version. It seems to give far more "freedom" to the wife. All forms of polyandry are rare, though, and in spite of mythmaking by feminists, polyandry was never the "original form of human society."

Polyandry, especially the feminist misunderstanding of it, leads on neatly to the next theory of "origin" for society, the "primitive matriarchy." I'll deal with that in the next section.

The myth of the matriarchy

Feminists love the idea of human society originally being a matriarchy. If you look at animals, ants and bees are almost the only examples of females, or at least the queen, being in charge.

There's no evidence at all for any similar behaviour among apes. All that anthropology can throw up in the way of "evidence" is a tiny handful of societies that seem to be matriarchal but, when you look at the facts more closely, aren't at all.

Even among ants and bees it's only the queen who is in charge. The female bees and ants do all the work and the 'drones' - the males - simply fuck the queen and make her pregnant. As far as the other females in the colony are concerned, they are simply workhorses and slaves. The drones do nothing but fuck the queen and are waited on hand and foot by the female ants and bees.

When we turn to human history the case is even clearer. There are certainly myths, such as the Amazons and a few other legends of women warriors, but nothing substantial in the way of evidence or even cultural traditions.

In the stage of human society when men were hunters, there's no sign of anything resembling a 'matriarchy.' Quite the opposite; the utter dependence of women on men for food created a profoundly 'patriarchal' society. Women might have gathered roots, berries, herbs and so on but it was the men who put the bulk of the food on the table through hunting and fishing. Left to their own resources, the women would have starved to death or at least been severely malnourished.

When agriculture began on a small scale, villages evolved and crop cultivation began to replace hunting as the main source of food, women played a larger role in both work and the family. Until then they had been totally dependent on men and their role was purely one of looking after the children and cooking the food the men had provided. Now farming gave them the chance to grow and produce food themselves. The result was that they grew less dependent on men and even became economically more self-sufficient. Soon we see at this period of history the beginnings of 'Goddess worship' and art that depicts women in an exalted and idealised fashion.

As agriculture developed and in particular as produce began to be traded with others, the villages began to evolve into towns and cities. At that point the economic organisation of society returned to its more natural mode of men in charge. Patriarchal religions replaced matriarchal ones and the role of women reverted to its more normal one of subservience to men.

So, though for a brief period in small communities, women had more power than they had enjoyed before or than they were allowed later, these villages were a long way short of what feminists claim as a 'matriarchal society.' There is no evidence from archaeology, written records or even oral traditions of any period when 'women ruled,' as one feminist claimed.

Only within the realm of the family could anything like a matriarchal state be said to exist. The baby is dependent on his or her mother and to that extent she oversees his or her daily life.

Once the baby becomes more self-sufficient, that situation changes. From then on, the child grows and develops their own personality and boys should be trained from as early a stage as possible to be strong, assertive and dominant. Boys should come to look on their mother as no more than a servant to minister to their needs, just as she does to their father. They should also look on their sisters in the same way, as future mothers to serve men. Girls should learn to be submissive, obedient and respectful towards men and to understand that it is their role in life to be servants towards men. In the next section, I'll talk more about the upbringing of children with a view to a naturalistic development of personality and society.

Bringing up children

Children should be raised to develop their true masculine and feminine natures and prepare them for their proper roles in society. I'm proud to say that as a mother of four children I've followed and applied the principles I believe in when raising my own sons and daughters.

What does this mean in practice? I've already outlined the basic principles, that boys should be brought up to regard their mother and sisters as servants to men and that girls should be brought up to regard their role in life as being servants to men. From the earliest possible age, it should be made clear to girls that they were put on earth to be fucked by men and to have their babies. They should clearly understand that they have three holes - their gob, their cunt and their arse - all of which are available to men for fucking. Equally boys should understand that their natural purpose in life is to fuck girls and women and to get them pregnant. Girls should be brought up to consider it an honour that a man wants to fuck them and must always show him gratitude when he does. Boys should be brought up to consider it their right to fuck girls and to expect girls to be happy and grateful to be fucked by them.

Girls should be raised to be polite, obedient and to submit to boys and men and to accept that if they fail to please them it is always their fault and they deserve to be punished for their own failures. Boys should be raised to be dominant, assertive and manly. From as early an age as possible girls should be punished and boys should witness their punishment and, when they are old enough, help to administer punishment themselves. This will include witnessing and administering punishment to their mothers as well as their sisters.

Before discussing the question of domestic discipline I'll briefly talk about the question of roles within the home. Cooking, cleaning, washing, washing-up, sewing, knitting and ironing are all, obviously, roles that should be left to the mother and daughters to perform. The men should never 'help' around the home or have anything to do with housework. Their role in these matters is to supervise the mother and daughters to make sure they do their workload properly and to criticise and punish them if they fail.

What about other aspects of the home? Gardening is one obvious area where the girls and women could safely be left to do the work. Painting and decorating is another area where females could be put to work. The men and boys could supervise them to make sure they do the job properly but not 'help' them in any way.

In fact, nearly all the work around the home could - and probably should - be done by girls and women. The model of the bee or ant colonies where the women do all the work and the men just relax and fuck the queen has a lot to be said for it.

A naturalistic approach to the family has the husband/father as the head and the mother and daughters as subservient, obedient, respectful drudges, doing the work and (in the case of the mother) being fucked by the Head of Household. Since rape is nature's preferred way of fucking, the mother should be routinely raped by her husband. In addition, her sons and daughters should witness her rape from the earliest possible age and should understand that this is how marriage should be and that the primary purpose of a woman is to be raped and fucked.

The next chapter will deal with the thorny issue of 'domestic discipline.' This is much more complex than is often assumed and covers a variety of aspects of life for females.

Domestic discipline

Domestic discipline is too often looked at as a purely physical process. It actually involves three separate aspects of discipline - verbal, psychological and physical. If the verbal and psychological aspects are sufficiently well-instilled into the female, the use of physical chastisement and discipline will be less necessary.

Verbal discipline takes many forms but all have the same purpose - to reinforce the sense within the girl or woman of her own inferiority to the male. She will never be allowed to refer to her breasts as breasts, boobs or similar euphemisms but must always refer to that part of her body as tits. She will never be allowed to refer to her bottom as a bottom, rear end, anus, behind or even a bum but must always refer to that part of her body as her arse. Similarly, she will call the cheeks in that part of her body arse-cheeks and the hole her arsehole. Her mouth will always be referred to as her gob. It goes without saying that using words like vagina, pussy or similar euphemisms will never be tolerated. She must always refer to that part of her body as her cunt or twat.

Equally, she never urinates or excretes or pees or poops; she pisses or shits. She doesn't break wind; she farts. She isn't having a period, on the curse or similar euphemisms; even the word menstruation should be replaced by the more appropriate term 'cuntstruation.'

In the same way, words like love-making are taboo. A girl or woman is just fucked or raped; a man never 'makes love' to her. The word fuck and variations on it like fucking are always used, not simply in sexual contexts but in others too, all designed to reinforce the female's sense of her own inferiority.

A girl must be raised from an early age to recognise that simply because she has a cunt, she must live a life of abject servility and utter inferiority to the superior male. She must be constantly told how disgusting her female body is and how much better the male body is than hers. She must be reminded that she only has a cunt instead of a lordly prick and balls; that she will grow a pair of tits; that she will cuntstruate, be fucked and raped, get pregnant and give birth. Girls must learn that men fuck and rape; girls are fucked and raped. We are just objects for men to use for their sexual pleasure, servants to do all or most of the work for the superior sex; and inferior beings who must obey and worship the superior male. They must not only learn all these things; they must understand the consequences of them, both for themselves and in the wider context of females in society.

Being born with a cunt carries with it an ineradicable, inherent inferiority to men. It is as much a genetic defect as spina bifida or autism. Simply because of being born with a cunt, a female must accept male lordship and rulership over her. Because she has a cunt, her lot in life is to be used by men, to be a servant and workhorse for them, to be raped by them and carry their babies inside them. It's nature's way and should be our way.

Far from being equal, females are always and innately inferior to men and boys and always will be. Men were born to rule and women to serve. That's just how it is in the natural world and how it should be in the human world as well. Anything else, any other form of society or gender relationship, is a perversion of nature. We have cunts and we are cunts and that is all we are. Females simply are nothing more than their cunts. Our cunts define us and determine our destiny in life.

Girls must be raised from an early age to address all other males (except for those men like their father or boyfriend or husband who are entitled to demand other honorifics of her) by the respectful title of 'sir.' Elder sisters must call their younger (or of course their elder!) brothers 'sir' as a matter of course. Girls and women must always address other males (except those who have demanded a different honorific) as 'sir.' If they are addressing a collective group of boys or men, they must address them as 'gentlemen.'

They must remember to always say 'please' and 'thank you' to boys and men; to show them politeness, respect and gratitude always; to show them consideration, diligence, obedience, a spirit of hard work and, not simply a willingness to serve them, but an eagerness to do so and a positive enthusiasm for obeying orders, being asked to carry out a task for a gentleman and, of course, as they get old enough, for being fucked and raped by them.

Girls must be raised from an early age to understand that simply having a cunt, being born with a cunt, makes them inherently inferior to boys and men. They must be raised to learn that their sole purpose in life is serve men by making themselves available to them for the purpose of being fucked and raped, to act as domestic servants to them, to be workhorses carrying out all the tasks men prefer not to do, to become pregnant by them, to carry their children to birth, to look after their children, maintain the home by doing all the cooking, cleaning, gardening, housework and DIY work around the home and to love, honour and obey them in everything.

Boys must be raised from an early age to understand that just having a lordly prick and balls is enough to make them inherently superior to girls and women. They must be raised to learn that girls and women exist to be fucked and raped regardless of their own selfish wishes, to be domestic servants to men, to be workhorses carrying out the tasks men prefer not to do, to be made pregnant by men and to give birth to their babies, to look after their children, maintain the family home in a pristine condition, feed and encourage the males in the family to find a good role in life and of course look for a girl who will maintain them in the lifestyle to which they ought, on a naturalistic family model, to be entitled.

Marriage

Marriage has become not simply increasingly unfashionable in the West but is regarded by both genders as unsatisfactory. To feminists, it's a 'trick of the patriarchy' and a means of oppressing women. To masculists, it's become a meal ticket for spoilt women to strip men of everything and leave them with nothing.

With the growing tendency for people not to marry at all, or if they do marry, to divorce, separate or commit adultery, the whole structure of marriage is coming under attack. Now in essence the problem isn't marriage as such but the way that it's become entwined with the legal and economic system, particularly in the West.

The Western world has been in thrall to one particular model of marriage for around fifteen hundred years - the model of monogamy. Other ideas have been condemned out of hand and, whatever happens in practice, been outlawed in the West. The Mormons instituted polygamy when the religion was founded but when they applied for statehood the US government made it plain that polygamy had to go. Thousands of 'renegade' Mormons still hold to the original church teaching on polygamy but mainstream Mormons don't and the law continues to take the view that bigamy and polygamy are crimes.

Following the legalization of gay marriage in the States, many people are now arguing that the logic of that decision is that polygamy should also be legalized.

The arguments against a polygamous lifestyle are increasingly sounding either irrational - those put forward by the religious right and feminists, for example - or motivated by administrative convenience on the part of the state rather than any genuinely moral considerations.

Could it just be that part of the problem lies not with marriage itself but with monogamous marriage? Is it possible that polygamy could help to restore the institution of marriage to a more stable state and lead to less disastrous consequences than tend to follow from either the break-up of the monogamous union or from the unbridled promiscuity that's running rampant right now?

In my opinion, the arguments against polygamy are based on emotion rather than on logic and there are no valid rational arguments against it. I truly believe that the legalization of polygamous unions would do more to stabilize family relations and the general fabric of society than almost any other legal reform.

In the animal kingdom, to which, however reluctant we are to admit it, we belong, the case is clear. Polygamy is the norm and monogamy an extremely rare phenomenon. Once again, we see how a naturalist code of ethics points us irresistibly towards the logic of polygamy as the normal social set-up for marriage.

At the moment I am in a monogamous marriage where my husband, without the slightest objection from me, routinely fucks other girls even though he's married to me and I've given him three children. He is forced by the law to commit adultery rather than simply have more than one wife. Which is the more 'moral' course of action - to have multiple wives or to keep committing adultery? I would be quite happy for him to marry as many women as he wants and I don't think that should be against the law. To be honest I'd prefer it if he just had a lot of wives rather than a string of girlfriends and lovers. Of course, it would make no difference to him fucking them but it would make the relations between them and me a bit less awkward as at times when we met me and the other girls are often walking on eggshells, particularly at the times when my husband and I are in the house at the same time as the other girls that he's fucking. There's no reason why we should feel that way and frankly legalising polygamy and letting him have as many wives as he likes would make the whole situation normal.

Arranged marriages

Arranged marriages, though generally condemned in the West, have been with us for most of human history. They are, at their simplest, when the parents decide who their child is going to marry. Generally they have similar backgrounds, religious and cultural views of the world.

India, Pakistan, North Africa and large parts of Asia have a tradition of arranged marriages. In those parts of the world arranged marriages are thought of as a valuable economic process and sons and daughters are looked on as a commodity to be bartered among the various parties. Ironically, in spite of all the criticism from feminists and others, the global rate of divorce among those people in arranged marriages is a paltry 4 per cent, far lower than the rate in the West.

Arranged marriages also tend to be carried out when the partners are young which from a biological point of view is highly satisfactory as that is when both are at their most fertile, particularly the girls. In India, 90% of marriages are 'arranged marriages' and throughout the world the percentage is 60%. So, arranged marriage is the norm and it clearly a successful model. Far more so than the monogamous, self-chosen marriages of the West.

In countries where arranged marriages are the norm, not just the parents but other family members - aunts and uncles, brothers and sisters, even first, second and third cousins, are involved in the process of selecting a suitable mate. The girl doesn't have to worry if her parents or in-laws will approve of her or vice versa; all these questions will have been dealt with before the arrangements are put in place.

Equally she'll know she's marrying a boy or man from the same background, cultural context, religion and so on.

One big advantage of an arranged marriage is that it cuts out the whole nonsense of 'dating' and 'romance.' Instead of boys and girls waiting to find Mister or Mrs Right, the whole thing is arranged and they don't need to worry about dating, etiquette or having to make romantic gestures and so on. Children of arranged marriages will be raised in an atmosphere where the parents share the same values, religion, culture and background. There will be far fewer areas of potential conflict within the family as a result.

Both partners will enter the marriage with a full awareness that love and romance are not a part of the package. The boy won't have to pretend that he loves the girl but it's quite clear to both parties that he's marrying her purely for his convenience and to fuck her and make her pregnant Theirs is primarily a contract in which the girl has effectively been sold or at least leased to her husband. She is a possession in the same way as an item of furniture or any other piece of his property. The parents decide on her future and, providing the future husband agrees, she becomes his property. That seems far more the 'natural' way of going about a marriage rather than the way things are at the moment in the West/

Reforms to the marriage ceremony

I believe that the existing marriage ceremonies, both civil and religious, need radical reform. This should be done in two main areas.

In the first place, the girl should never be asked if she wants to marry the man. She should of course always be asked to 'love, honour and obey' - it's essential that the 'obey' part is an integral aspect of the ceremony - but she should not be asked 'do you take this man to be your lawful wedded husband?' He should be asked if he wants to marry her but not the other way around.

The man should also not be asked to 'love, honour and cherish' his bride. Instead he should be asked 'do you take this woman to be your lawful wedded bride?' The bits talking about 'forsaking all others, cleaving only to her' should also be removed from his part of the ceremony though of course still included in the bride's part of the service (which should in any case be drastically cut down, at least the 'speaking' part of her role.)

And, of course, polygamous marriages where the husband has multiple wives should also be legalized. Often the result will be that the husband appears with several wives in tow when he marries his latest bride!

Divorce

The law on divorce is crazy at present. I believe that there are a whole range of reforms that would make it far less common than it is at present and which would also lead to a society that was fairer and more stable.

At the moment the law recognises so-called 'no fault divorces' on the basis of what's known as 'irretrievable breakdown of marriage.' Both husband and wife can apply for a divorce and women initiate the overwhelming majority of them.

In the event of a divorce, custody of any children from the marriage is almost always given to the wife, generally on the basis of 'sole custody.' Access is normally required though the way access regulations work in practice often means that ex-husbands are deprived of any kind of meaningful contact with their children.

Property settlements overwhelmingly favour the wife and generally the husband loses his home, most of his assets and income and is forced to pay maintenance and alimony. The law has even treated his ability to pay as an 'irrelevant' factor with its focus being solely on 'the needs of the woman.'

All these things need to be done away with. Since the main focus of divorce these days has been greedy wives wanting to get their hands on the husband's money, the first reform to the law is obvious.

Divorce should be a proceeding that only the husband can initiate. Wives should be expressly forbidden to apply for a divorce. Equally wives should be forbidden to contest a divorce if the husband initiates it. Wives can be divorced by their husband irrespective of their wishes but they cannot divorce their husband of their own volition.

Since most divorces at present are initiated by the wife, that reform alone would bring about a massive drop in the number of divorces. Other improvements to the law would not only make it much fairer but would also reduce the frequency of divorce.

The second area where drastic reform is needed is in terms of the financial settlement when a divorce takes place. Under existing laws the ex-wife gets the lion's share including the home, the bulk of any savings, most of the assets and so on. It is immaterial whether she has made the slightest financial contribution to acquiring these assets; even if she has not paid a penny towards anything during her marriage, she will still get the bulk of the goodies on offer.

This is obviously unfair. It's also becoming increasingly archaic (and, as we all know, you can't eat archaic and have it too!) with the growing number of couples in which the wife is either the sole or primary breadwinner. Househusbands are becoming far more common than before and a wife working full time on loads of bunce is also becoming common.

The argument from economic earning power (which feminists have used for years as a way of justifying greed by ex-wives) doesn't really stack up so well now. The idea of a privileged husband with all the financial clout and a dependant, desperate wife with little or none is more and more becoming a fairy tale.

Feminists, of course, are the first to howl and complain if a wife who is better off than her husband is asked to give him the lion's share of the spoils.

If feminism really was about equality, they'd be applauding decisions like that as being fair. But, of course, feminists aren't interested in equality; they stand for 'females first' in every aspect of life.

What's hers is hers; what's his is mine, seems to be their motto.

So how can we reform the financial settlement in divorce cases? To begin with, there must be a recognition that the interests of the children (obviously, this provision won't apply to childless couples) come first. That means that wrangles over money could and should be avoided by deciding on the best way to provide for them in the event of divorce.

That might mean that the wife or husband gets a greater share than they do at present; it might mean that both get an equal share; but what it would mean is that both would be awarded proportionate shares of the property and assets from the marriage. Whatever was felt to be the fair distribution of assets would become the norm.

Now a fair distribution needs to take three things into account. The first, and most important, is of course the needs of any children from the marriage. The second is the relative extent of the financial contributions to the marriage by each partner.

This reform would generally mean that the man would get the lion's share of the property and assets, as is only fair in the event of his being the sole or main contributor. The third is the likely relative situation of the two partners following their divorce.

Let's take four hypothetical scenarios and compare how the law acts now with how it would act if its decisions were based on these principles. In the first example, the wife does not work and has stayed at home to look after the children. The husband works full-time and has a well-paid job. In that case it seems fair that the husband should keep the home and the wife should receive decent alimony and maintenance from him. (I'll talk about custody in a moment.)

In the second example, the wife works part-time and the husband works full-time. Neither of them is on particularly good money. In that case it seems fair that the husband should keep the home and the wife receive alimony and maintenance in accordance with the husband's ability to pay.

In the third example, the wife works full-time and the husband works part-time. He spends a lot of time at home and is the primary carer. In this instance it seems fair that the wife should be awarded the home and the husband receive alimony and maintenance.

In the fourth example, the wife works full-time and has a well-paid job. The husband does not work and is the sole carer for the children. In this instance it seems fair that the wife should be awarded the home and the husband receive alimony and maintenance.

In the way the law works now, in all four cases the wife would get nearly everything and the husband would receive nothing. These provisions would at least make things much fairer.

Now to the vexed question of custody. There's a lot to be said for the norm in a divorce being joint custody and only in exceptional cases sole custody being awarded. An intermediate award of 'primary custody' could be introduced where for 4 days a week one ex has custody of the children and for the other 3 days the other ex gets custody.

Sole custody would be an extremely rare event and not be based on gender but on the suitability of one or other partner to be the sole custodian of the children.

Mothers and fathers are equally capable of performing this role.

In cases where sole or primary custody applies, reasonable access would always be included as part of the settlement. There is no reason why divorce should lead to the alienation of the children from one of the parents.

If these reforms to the law were made, not only would divorce become much rarer but it would also lead to the post-divorce situation becoming far less of a battle zone than it is.

These changes to the law would be based on the ideas of gender equity rather than on those of feminism.

Of course, the naturalist approach would result in a simpler and more radical reform. The whole approach to marriage of naturalism is different from feminism or even gender equity (which is the type of proposals that I've just outlined).

Naturalism sees marriage as a transfer of ownership. The wife is seen, not as a person in her own right, but as the property of her husband. When he marries the woman, she becomes as much an asset or chattel of his as an item of furniture.

The logical consequence of that view is that when he divorces his wife the husband is simply disposing of an asset and the idea that she should be entitled to anything once he has decided to get rid of her is as crazy as if a table or piece of jewellery expected to be paid for being sold on to another owner. Just as on her marriage any property or money or any other kind of assets should become the property of her husband, so too if he divorces her they should stay as his property.

Under a naturalistic system of justice, a divorced woman would be left with nothing. The husband would receive the home, all the money, property and other assets of the marriage, sole custody of any children from the marriage and the sole right to decide on how much access to his children the ex-wife would be allowed.

Naturalistic justice is the proper way forward and would make divorce an aspect of life that was extremely rare. Rather than the present situation where wives use divorce as a weapon, the husband could threaten his wife with divorce if she did not obey and serve him. Such a reform in the law would place the whole institution of marriage on a firmer footing.

Separation

Separation, where one partner leaves the family home but without putting in place the legal machinery of divorce, is again far more common than it once was. I feel that legal reforms in this area too are needed.

Naturalistic justice would regard a wife leaving the family home without being divorced as an act of desertion. By doing so she would forfeit any possibility of obtaining access to the children of the marriage. A husband leaving the family home without being divorced would be required to give good grounds for his actions and the only valid ones recognised by the law are limited to physical and mental cruelty on the part of the wife. A wife who leaves the family home without being divorced will be regarded by the law as having deserted the home and family and will be treated as a criminal offence.

A husband may obtain a judicial separation in one of two ways. The first is a simple judicial separation where he simply hands his wife a notice of separation and she is required to leave the home immediately. By that act she is deprived of any rights of access to the home or to the use or possession of any item within it or any moneys or other assets accrued within the family home. In an aggravated separation, where the husband has filed a complaint against his wife of physical or mental cruelty, those aspects will apply but in addition she will be subject to a restraining order forbidding her to have any access to or contact with either her husband or his children.

The whole purpose of these laws is to make the wife obedient and subservient towards her husband and thereby to maintain marital harmony.

Adultery

Adultery is of course an area where some parts of the world regard it as regrettable but no more than that while others look upon it as a crime. In terms of naturalism, it is obvious that only the adultery of the wife should be a criminal offence. The husband not only has the right to multiple wives but also if he so wishes the right to fuck other women. That is his right as a full citizen and a fully human being in the eyes of the law.

Women, by contrast, are regarded as property and a wife as the property of her husband. If a husband offers his wife to another man for his use, the wife is not guilty of adultery, since it was the husband offering another man or men his property. Only if the wife voluntarily fucks other men while remaining married to her husband is she guilty of adultery.

The law should punish adultery by a wife severely, with public floggings and hard labour.

Fornication

Fornication, or the act of fucking while the girl or woman is single, can be a real minefield for anti-feminists. On the one hand it's obviously wrong for the girl to be a promiscuous slut and go around fucking anyone she wants. On the other hand it's equally wrong for her to have any say over who fucks her or how the gentleman fucks her. So fornication as the result of rape is OK; fornication as the result of a deliberate choice by a promiscuous slut is wrong.

A naturalist system of justice would punish the slut who fucks promiscuously from 'choice' and reward the gentleman who rapes promiscuously regardless of the wishes of the girl. His actions and behaviour would be legal and praiseworthy; hers would rightly be condemned and punished.

Prostitution

At the moment the laws on prostitution are crazy and totally unfair. It's crazy that gentlemen should have to pay a whore to use her body and that she should then be able to live off the proceeds of that. It's even more unfair that a gentleman can be arrested and punished just for doing that. I mean, how crazy is it that a whore is willing to sell her body for money and yet he gets punished just for giving the girl what she wants?

So what's the best solution? IMO, the post-feminist society will institute such radical changes in sexual relations that prostitution in future will be pretty much a specialist market mainly for rich gentlemen.

In terms of the law, it should still be IMO a criminal offence for a girl to solicit men for sex; after all, that's her trying to get money out of gentlemen for something that she ought to be giving them for nothing! I reckon it should also still be an offence for a girl to earn money out of selling her body because otherwise she's living off immoral earnings and we can't have her doing that, can we? So if she tries to make money out of selling her body that makes her a whore and whoring should still be a crime.

So how should we regulate the limited amount of prostitution that will still be available for mainly rich, specialist clients? The most obvious solution is to grant licenses to gentlemen, organisations run by gentlemen or possibly the local authorities to operate brothels. In these places the girls will be subject to the authority of the owner and management of the brothel, who obviously can only be men. They will hire out the girl for gentlemen to use and they will take all the profits of the transaction between the gentlemen wishing to buy and those offering the girl's services. That would mean that the girl could still be fucked or used sexually by the gentlemen in any way they wanted as long as they'd agreed on it beforehand with the brothel or the girl's legal owner. A gentleman who wanted to pay to use a whore for more specialist services could still do so but she wouldn't be able to live off Immoral earnings any more since the fee to use her services would, quite rightly, be paid by the gentlemen to the brothel management or the girl's legal owner Instead of to the whore herself. A win-win situation all round; the sex goes on, the money changes hands but this time not a penny of it would go into the girl's pocket! She'd still be a whore but the law would now classify her as a "voluntary whore" rather than as a "whore for money."

I think it would also be a good idea (I'll write more about it when I post on education) if whores went into schools to give sex education classes to the students. They'd be able to make sex education really come alive and give the youngsters the benefit of all their experience so they'd be able to enjoy the full range of sexual activities from an early age through direct hands-on experience!

Obviously the girls would have to be checked out by doctors on a daily basis to make sure they're clean. After all, we wouldn't want the whores passing on any of their nasty sexually transmitted diseases to their gentlemen customers, would we?

So how exactly would prostitution be regulated in a post-feminist society? In the first place, it would be a legal requirement for the girl to be registered with the local authority and a central database as a "voluntary whore." Her legal owner or the management of the brothel would sign a legally binding document in which they give a clear undertaking that under no circumstances will the girl receive a penny for any services that she offers to her gentlemen customers, all the money she makes going directly to the brothel or to her legal owner.

She is not even allowed to accept gifts like a meal, a box of chocolates or even a bunch of flowers. Only her owners may profit financially from her whoring. They also promise to pay 1% of the Income from her services to the government in tax.

She will have no say in what the customers want to do to her and no right to refuse to let them do anything they want if the management of the brothel or her legal owner have first agreed the transaction between them.

The girls would be given "performance ratings" by the customers and those who got high scores would be rewarded while the ones with low scores would be punished. If a gentleman complains about a whore only his word will be taken and of course the girl will be punished for failing to give him satisfaction. Anything goes with a voluntary whore and she's quite rightly not allowed to refuse any demand by a gentleman or to complain about her treatment. As long as the client has squared it with the brothel management or the whore's owner then he can do anything he likes to her.

I could say a lot more about this but that will do for starters, right?

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 most victims of domestic violence are female and most abusers are men. Actually, the figures from police reports and other sources show that it's really the other way around. 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." If she raises her voice to you - what a surprise! - you can't have her 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. Naturally, women who display "extreme jealousy and possessiveness" or "name calling and constant criticizing" are not punished in any way.

Females can (and do!) even 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 and without him even being formally charged. He can have this type of "decision" given 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 my 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 to show girls how inferior they are to men.

It believes that "domestic violence" by men should no longer be a crime and should instead be officially reclassified as "domestic discipline." On the other hand, it wants to make it possible for the law to punish females who step out of line.

The radical masculists suggest many 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 domestic violence 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 being 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 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 found 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 won't be allowed to call any witnesses on her behalf; not only hearsay evidence but even third-hand double hearsay evidence is admissible against her; anonymous denunciations are admissible in evidence 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 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 my 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," and to sign the forms declaring: "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 if 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 can be held in prison indefinitely. Radical masculist 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.

Sounds like a fair way to reform the laws so that feminists get the same shit they've been dishing out to men for years!

The culture of entitlement

Once upon a time us girls were happy to be taken care of by a man. He was the head of the household and what he said went. Then we got brainwashed by the feminists and suddenly we thought that we were as good as he was.

Before long they were even telling us that we were better than him. All our former duties like being a good wife and mother went right out of the window. Suddenly instead of having duties we had rights.

OK, at first we went along with that but then rights turned into privileges and the next thing we know privileges had become entitlements. Suddenly we were entitled to every fucking thing we wanted and to hell with the guys. If they dared to object or even question our demands. Needs turned into wants and wants into whims, fads and in the end total self- centred indulgence.

Bad behaviour by girls became the norm; respect, consideration, duty, you name it all went down the pan faster than you could say 'whoa!'

One time we knew what our proper place in the world was. Then the feminists started trying to make us all equal. Now it seems that just because we're female we need to be treated special. We are supposed to demand everything we want, keep on looking out for more things to demand and basically act like total self-centred spoilt brats.

Well, that's what the culture of entitlement means.

We're 'entitled' to anything we want just because we're female!

That's the sad state of things in the world these days.

The sooner we go back to doing what's right and to thInkIng about our duties in the word rather than about our 'entitlements' the better place the world will be!

Welfare sluts

One of the biggest problems we've got in society is the amount of money we're wasting on paying so-called single mothers millions in benefits.

Why?

Because they got pregnant and couldn't be bothered to do the decent thing and marry the bloke?

Well, the way I see it, you've got to take the consequences of what you do in life. If you're going to go around having it off and you're up the duff as a result, well, I'd say that's your problem.

Why should we have to pick up the tab for a bunch of slappers?

And look at all the goodies they get given to them on a plate - free council homes, housing benefit, "lone parent" benefit, family allowance, free teeth, free pretty well everything! Those "single mums" are nothing but a bunch of freeloaders!

Well, it's high time this particular gravy train got run right into the buffers!

If a bloke goes with a prostitute and has it off with her she isn't going to come on to him for money even if she winds up with a bun in the oven!

So why should we be expected to fork out our hard-earned dosh so that a bunch of part-time whores can live high on the hog on our money just because they couldn't keep their legs closed?

These girls aren't "single mums" or "lone parents;" they're welfare sluts getting paid by the taxpayer for having it off!

So how can we get rid of the problem of these welfare sluts?

The first thing to do is to stop rewarding the whores for opening their legs and start punishing them for it!

Here's my five-point plan for getting rid of the problem of welfare sluts for good.

1 Take away their council homes

2 Take away their housing benefit

3 Take away their "lone parent" benefit and family allowance

4 Take away their bastard kids and put them up for adoption with married couples

5 Send the lazy slags out to do a proper day's work!

If we do all that then these welfare sluts will disappear overnight.

And a good thing too!

What sort of roles should we have?

Over the last few years I've noticed a lot of different ideas on how men and women should be. Relationships, work, home life, dress, behaviour in public, legal status, education and sexuality are some of the areas where there seems to be huge disagreement.

I'm going to ignore the various schools of feminism because I assume that most of my readers will broadly accept the idea of male headship of families and male leadership of society.

But beyond that I sense different approaches to gender issues, the organisation of society and questions of dress and behaviour. There also seems to be a divide between people who are mainly orientated towards a BDSM-type sexual relationship and don't go beyond that and those who genuinely want to establish a patriarchal society.

Even among the supporters of patriarchy there are differences of degree, emphasis and approach. The role of men and women isn't seen identically even by that group of people. Some want a sort of 1950s housewife type of set-up, others want a harder approach where the sexual rights of the male outweigh the possible lack of enthusiasm of the female to an absolute and unqualified degree, some believe that domestic discipline is essential, and some look on females as less than human - at best a lower species of animal and at worst an object to be used.

So are we 'angels in the house' to be supported financially, treated like children or pets, our role seen as housewife and mother and cook and cleaner? Or are we sex objects to be fucked and used and nothing else about us matters? Or what?

Of course, as a writer of many BDSM stories and a lot of articles and other posts I've sometimes written satire, sometimes fantasy and sometimes written how I really feel and think about things. And I'm not sure that even my own positions are necessarily consistent.

There are certain areas where I feel absolutely sure about the right way to think and act and the right direction that society should be taking. On the other hand, there are others where I'm not sure at all or even where I find myself more in sympathy with women than men.

And there are whole aspects of life where I really feel that it's almost impossible to correct an injustice in one place without creating an equal injustice in others.

And of course there are different attitudes towards what both men and women feel is the right way to behave. Look at the thorny issue of the niqab/burkha - is a woman who wears one being submissive or not? Many Muslim feminists claim that to wear this garment does not mean that you are accepting male headship.

Anyway, let's leave that specific issue aside and concentrate on more general aspects. How should women dress? Like nuns, like Doris Day or like sluts? Or does it depend - on the time and place and situation, on the individual relationship?

I have a marriage where my husband has very definite ideas about how he wants me to dress. As those of you who know my blogs and groups and stories and other articles I've posted elsewhere know by now, in my case he wants me to dress like a total slut most of the time and only dress in a more 'modest' style at, say, parents' evenings at school or that sort of thing.

But should there be general rules on dress? Or is it an area where different Masters will have different ideas?

A related area is modesty of speech. I think it's a given that we should be polite and respectful to gentlemen but what about the way we speak? Is dirty talking out, reserved only for the bedroom/relationship situations or can - maybe even should - us girls be foul-mouthed and swear like troopers all the time? (On a personal level my husband wants me to talk dirty and swear like a trooper all the time which by now you've probably guessed!)

Another area of conflict is in the field of work. Should the husband work and support a stay-at-home wife? Or is that not just old-fashioned but economically unrealistic with the strains on people's incomes these days?

On purely sexual matters I think it's simpler overall. Girls really do have a duty to let men fuck them; going out on a date is an implied contract where sex is on offer by the girl at the end of it; and IMO it's totally ridiculous to think that a husband, partner or boyfriend could possibly be guilty of 'rape.'

Date rape just isn't rape in any meaningful sense of the word.

It's a contract where the girl implicitly accepts that the man will want to fuck her and if she refuses at the end of the date then she's broken the contract and only she has done anything wrong.

If he decides to rape her when she acts like that then it's her own fault and she's only got herself to blame for what happened to her.

In the same way, I think that if a girl gets pregnant - whether through a relationship or through rape - then only the father of her unborn child should have the right to decide on whether she keeps the baby or has an abortion. The woman should have no say in the matter whatsoever. It should be purely the man's decision.

If a girl is in a relationship - marriage, partnership or boyfriend - equally she's entered into a contract where the man has the right to decide if and when to use contraception; if and when and how they have sex; if and when she can have an abortion; and every aspect of her sexuality should be controlled by him. As a slogan I like puts it 'her body - his choice!'

Fairness and naturalism

The natural world isn't fair or just or kind. It's cruel and selfish and a place where the strong dominate, exploit, use and even kill the weak. The natural order of things is for the weak to be ruled by the strong and to submit to them or to suffer the consequences.

Since that's the case in nature, naturalist morality says, it should be the same in human relationships and in human society. In the natural world compassion and kindness are wrong and cruelty and indifference to suffering are right. The weak hinder the survival of the strong and therefore it's morally right to punish them for their weakness.

From a naturalistic point of view, strength is the highest good and weakness the worst and lowest form of evil. Strength helps survival; weakness hinders it. That's why it's morally right to punish the weak just for being weak.

The roots of real morality lie in the natural world where strength and cunning are virtues and weakness and stupidity are vices. Lying is fine if it helps to gain an advantage in the struggle for survival. Using violence is fine if it gets you what you want. All these things help the strong to survive.

Remember \- the fundamental root of morality on a naturalistic basis is that whatever helps survival is good and right and whatever hinders it is bad and wrong.

Weak people deserve everything they get in life.

That's nature's way and it ought to be our way too!

On a naturalistic morality, strength aids survival; weakness hinders it. That means that it's morally right for a man to rape a woman and that it's morally wrong for her to object to rape or resist being raped. Rapists are the good guys and rape "victims" are the bad ones. You could even argue that a 'rape victim' deserves to be punished by the law as a criminal simply for being raped. The man raped her because he is the stronger one; the 'rape victim,' being weak, deserves to be punished for her weakness. In the eyes of a law based on the rational principles of naturalism, raping a woman would no longer be a crime (except in the sense of a crime against property which I'll discuss later when I talk specifically about rape and how the law needs to be fundamentally reformed in that area.) On a legal system founded on sound naturalistic principles, the man who raped the woman would have done nothing wrong or criminal. The only crime in its eyes would be that the woman had been raped and that as a result, only she would deserve to be punished for being raped. (Some countries like Saudi Arabia seem to have dimly grasped this principle though they get mixed up with adultery when in fact it's not the adultery but the fact that she was raped that was the woman's real crime and for which she should be punished - punished for being raped.)

On the same principle, torture is morally right and objecting to torture is morally wrong. Torturers are the good guys and torture "victims" are the bad ones. If a man is torturing a woman she obviously deserves it through her weakness and, far from punishing him for torturing her, only she should be further punished for being tortured. Women are weaker than men and basically a woman has no rights against a man and he can do anything he wants to her because he's the stronger one.

Justice and morality is all about the interests of the stronger. Naturalistic morality, law and justice works on the principle that what the stronger one says, goes. That's how it should be in our crazy fucked-up world but, sadly, isn't. I'll now go on to the second section which is about the nature of being female.

Section B: Reflections on the nature of being female

The Nature of being female

Over the course of the last 35 years I've often asked myself what it is that defines a woman. What makes us female, feminine or whatever other word you want to use to describe those of us who are not males?

And of course, being a woman - being a girl - being female - defines every aspect of our life and is the fundamental basis of my identity. I have no choice in the matter; I was born female and I must live with the consequences of that for the rest of my life.

Of course, I thought about what it meant to be, first, a girl and then, as I became a teenager, what it meant to be a woman. It seemed obvious to me at that time in my life that the feminists were right and that the main differences between us and men were cultural rather than biological.

I believed not only that men and women were equal but that I was as good as any man; I believed I was entitled to equal pay, equal opportunity, an equal say in things with men, equal rights, that it was my body and my choice what to do with it and that my vagina was not only something over which I and only I had control but something to be looked on with honour and respect as the channel through which life entered the world.

Well on one level of course we can do nearly everything a Man can; there are female scientists, engineers, politicians, businesswomen and so on. Maybe (even in the West) the proportion of them is small but I used to think that was purely down to male prejudice against women.

But I was wrong.

How did I begin to question the ideas of feminism? Well, it started when I was 18 years old. I still have trouble writing about the whole shebang (even thinking about it is painful in many ways) but basically it began when I was raped.

And that single act - a whole weekend during which I was repeatedly raped by a man who got me drunk and abducted me - led to the beginning of my awakening.

There were so many levels on which my rape made me question my feminist beliefs. To begin with when I looked back at it I realised that I had been largely responsible for what happened to me. I'd been drinking, flirting with the young man, talking dirty and was dressed in a sexually provocative way. I'd more or less given him the green light for sex and then I'd held back at the last minute to tease him. It was as if I felt that being female gave me power over him.

So, when I thought back about my rape I saw that if I had behaved differently it wouldn't have happened and that made me feel very guilty.

Because I was honest enough to admit to myself that I'd behaved badly and that my own behaviour had largely led to my rape I began to question the feminist dogma that rape is always the man's fault and never the woman's.

I realised we had a responsibility to behave properly and if we didn't then bad things might happen to us and so we had a duty to act responsibly.

That in itself marked a change in my attitudes but another aspect of my rape shook me to the core and led me towards a feeling of self-loathing and shame that has never left me. Although at the age of 24 I finally understood and accepted it more than I did - and understand not only myself better than I did but the true role of females within society and in terms of sexuality - the feeling of shame and self-contempt remains and will never leave me.

What shook me rigid and made me agonise for years is how I reacted when I was raped.

I orgasmed, I came; I was aroused by and responded to my rape!

That led to six years of self-contempt, self-hatred and shame. What was wrong with me? Was I a depraved slut who enjoyed being raped? Was I mentally ill to have found sexual pleasure in my rape?

It wasn't until I met my future husband when I was 24 years old that he explained things to me and suddenly it all made sense for the first time. He made me realise that not only was I and I alone to blame for my rape (I'd already understood that for the six previous years) but that I'd positively wanted to be raped and had set out to engineer the situation so that I would be raped.

This came as a blinding revelation to me. At the time, I was convinced that the last thing I'd wanted to happen was to be raped and yet actually that was exactly what I'd wanted!

Another lightbulb went off in my head when I asked him - rather embarrassed \- why it was that when I'd been raped I'd orgasmed. He laughed at that question and told me the answer was obvious. I told him it wasn't obvious to me and could he explain it because I still couldn't understand it even after six years of thinking about it.

When he told me why it was I came it was suddenly blindingly clear and logical. He said three things all of which made perfect sense to me and explained everything.

The first was an elaboration of the fact that I'd obviously wanted to be raped. He said that the fact that I orgasmed through being raped proved three things - that I'd wanted to be raped, that I'd enjoyed being raped and that I'd consented to being raped.

I'd already accepted that I'd wanted to be raped and that I must have enjoyed it or I wouldn't have cum like I did but the idea that I'd actually consented to the rape threw me completely and I asked him to explain it to me.

He laughed and said, think, Donna. What happened when you were raped is that you came. The mere fact that you had an orgasm when you were raped proves that you did consent to it. The mind can lie but the body always tells the truth. And your body said just one thing \- please rape me.

The whole idea that rape was something I'd consented to threw me at first but once again it made perfect sense. Suddenly I saw things more clearly and I recognised that I'd behaved appallingly. Although my bad attitudes and bad behaviour meant that I'd deserved to be raped as a punishment I'd also got tremendous sexual pleasure out of it.

When I asked him to explain how it was that I'd got sexual pleasure out of being raped he laughed again and told me I'd been brainwashed by feminist propaganda Just being fucked isn't enough, he said. All that crap about love and tenderness and consent is just bullshit. You might have been fucked before, he told me, but what you had when you got fucked wasn't real sex. Rape is the only real sex there is.

I was dumbfounded but again it all made perfect sense to me. Rape was real sex and just being fucked was play acting. And as for 'making love' he was totally scornful about that.

At that point in our discussions he got into deeper stuff about what it means to be female and how a real man thinks and behaves. It was shocking, fascinating and enlightening all at once. My head was spinning as all the feminist beliefs I'd held were being blown away with simple logic. It was a devastating but exhilarating experience and at last I slowly began to grasp the truth.
But that was just the beginning of my long journey towards enlightenment.

The nature of being female - Part Two

During the next few weeks my future husband explained more and more about the nature of being a female. As well as his own wise words, I also did a lot of soul-searching and thinking and read as much as I could on the subject.

And the conclusIon I came to, partly with his help, partly what I discovered in my researches and partly just by thinking, was that I as a woman, a female, a girl, was the weaker sex and not simply weaker but also inferior. Simply because I was female.

All the propaganda about equality and rights and special privileges and how men were male chauvinists and sexist pigs if they didn't treat me like that was wrong.

We're certainly physically weaker than Men; there are far fewer (even proportionate to population and in the West at least with not just equal opportunities but even special favours given to us) scientists, engineers, doctors and businesswomen.

We've got smaller brains than Men and we're less adept at skilful tasks and we find it harder to focus and concentrate and multitask than Men.

All these things are relevant and reinforced my growing sense of inferiority. But it wasn't just that ever since my rape I'd learned to become addicted to rough sex and to be sexually submissive. It was more than just the sexual aspect of my growing awareness of my own inferiority that struck me.

I am a female and that means - though it took me a few months of fighting against the idea - that I am a lesser being than a man. I am a second-class citizen and always will be. Because of my birth and my gender, I am destined by nature to be an entirely inferior being simply because I am female. In and of myself I have no purpose in life; my whole raison d'etre is to be used by men and to serve and please them. That and that alone is the sole purpose of my existence.

This truth took me a while to grasp but now I feel it in every fibre of my body, in every nerve cell of my mind, in every vessel carrying blood through my heart. Most of all I feel this truth within my cunt.

When I'm fucked by a man I feel utterly fulfilled and it's as if that makes me feel worthwhile and happy. And I've learned that this feeling is no accident. Apparently, our cunt (science has discovered) has a direct connection to our brains and so when our cunt is happy we are happy. So, every time I'm fucked I'm happy.

And since more scientific research has shown (I'll dig out and post the link) that if a female is raped she will experience orgasm and since when I orgasm it's the whole centre of the universe it's obvious that being raped is better sex than just being fucked - let alone 'made love to.'

And my submissive nature is natural and instinctive and it fills my whole body and mind and heart and soul but of course most of all it traces back to its natural source - my cunt. When a man uses my cunt, he is making me serve my natural function and purpose in life.

It is my cunt, the gaping hole between my legs, which defines me and governs my whole existence. Because I have a cunt I was born for one purpose and one purpose only - to serve men.

My cunt was made to be used by men for their pleasure and in its use by them I find the highest pleasure a female can ever hope to experience. When I am not being raped I long for the power, the force, the dominating thrust and penetration of an erect prick using my cunt. The whole nature of my existence, my whole identity, is simply and solely defined by my cunt and its whole function and purpose is to be used by a man for his pleasure.

And I've said already that rape is the only real sex; that rape gives you orgasms you can hardly ever get just with being fucked; that rape also reinforces my own sense of inferiority, of service, of being simply an object to be used.

So, what is the nature of being a female?

Put simply it means - to have a cunt.

It is my cunt that defines me, makes me inferior, forced by my own inner nature to serve.

A cunt is made to be fucked, raped, used, penetrated, hurt and whored out for men to use for their pleasure. To be female is to have a cunt and to be nothing more than a cunt to be used by men, to serve them, to try to please them, to receive pain at their hands, to be humiliated, compelled to obey and to have no will of your own.

A female is simply an object for men's use, a servant to try to make his life better, a slave with the whole essence of her being simply to direct all her thoughts, will, emotions and actions towards his pleasure. Everything we do or say should be intended to give pleasure to men.

And what is it that makes us all that? Simply because we are born inferior with inferior genital equipment and inferior bodies.

We are female; we are weak, stupid, born to serve and born to be used by Men.

Instead of a manly cock and balls I have only tits and a cunt to offer.

It is my tits and especially my cunt that defines me and makes me what I am.

However hard I try to deceive myself my body knows the truth.

I am female, born with a cunt, and because of that born to serve men, to please men and be used by them.

That is what defines me and gives me my purpose in life.

Cuntishness and intelligence

Having shown how what defines us girls and makes us inherently inferior to men is simply having a cunt I'm now going to try to explain how it is that having a cunt leads inevitably to being a cunt.

In the first place, we've already seen that science has discovered that the female brain is directly and intimately linked to the cunt and any activity in the cunt directly stimulates and gives pleasure to the brain.

We also know that the cunt, like a girl's tits, is specifically designed by nature to give pleasure to men when they use it.

It follows that the greatest possible stimulation of the female occurs when a girl is being fucked. The obvious conclusIon is that she will be more intelligent by being fucked and that fucking her cunt is the best way to impart superior male truth inside her.

We also know from science that a girl who is raped rather than 'consensually' fucked or 'made love to' will experience a higher degree of stimulation and be more alert during and after the experience and therefore rape is the most effective tool for educating and training females.

We also know from science that a girl who is raped will orgasm while with 'consensual' fucking and 'lovemaking' she hardly ever does so actually the rapist is giving the girl pleasure by raping her.

A cunt was designed and destined to be fucked, used and yes, raped by men. Rape is the norm in the animal kingdom and should be among human females too.

So, a girl who's a virgin will be less intelligent and less happy than a girl who gets fucked regularly; a girl who gets fucked 'consensually' will be less intelligent and less happy than a girl who gets raped.

So, rape makes you more intelligent and happier!

The problem is that most of the time one of the following things is going wrong.

1 Her cunt isn't being used at all

2 Her cunt isn't being used enough

3 Her cunt isn't being used in the right way

4 Her cunt is being used selfishly

The first point is obvious; if the girl's a virgin all her life she'll never get to experience male truth. She'll always be stupid and she'll never find happiness.

The second point is also obvious. If a girl isn't getting fucked often enough she'll always be stupid, full of ignorance and lies and miserable most of her life.

The third is complex. What exactly are right and wrong (or at least better and worse) ways of using a cunt?

It's obvious that a cunt was designed to be fucked so by definition lesbianism is a wrong use of a cunt. Since we also know that rape is superior to 'consensual' fucking we can make the stronger claim that a cunt is not only designed to be fucked by men but specifically to be raped by them. Just as lesbianism is a wrong use of a cunt, rape is the right use of it. As rape is the best way of using a cunt we can also deduce that 'consensual' fucking and 'lovemaking' are wrong ways of using a cunt.

Selfish ways of using a cunt include masturbation and cunnilingus. If a man is raping a girl's cunt he's fulfilling its true biological destiny; if a girl is just frigging herself off or, even worse, having her cunt tongued by a dyke or (worse still) a gentleman then her cunt is being used in a selfish way purely for her gratification. With rape, it's different; the girl's cunt is being used properly to give pleasure to the man raping her but by doing so he also gives her pleasure.

Once again, I come back to the fundamental truth that females are defined primarily by their cunts.

We have a cunt; that defines us as a cunt.

Intelligence in females

In an earlier post, I briefly touched on the fact that a girl's brain is connected directly to her cunt. Her brain is also smaller than a man's and is easily aroused by stimulating or penetrating her cunt.

It's no accident that with some exceptions men are more intelligent than females.

They have a cock and balls while we only have a cunt.

All our thinking, feeling, sensations and other brain processes are totally defined and dominated by the fact that we have a cunt.

And it's no accident that one of the most frequent male insults is 'you stupid cunt!'

Real men know instinctively that a cunt is associated inherently with stupidity and that females, having cunts, are (with a few minor exceptions) always more stupid than men.

So, when a man calls a girl a stupid cunt he's not just insulting her (though of course he's doing that too) but he's reminding her that the source of her stupidity is because she's a female, simply because she has a cunt.

So the simple fact of being born with a cunt rather than a manly cock and balls condemns us to a lifetime of stupidity, at least in comparison with men.

Some of it's DNA as well; In any successful or clever female, you can always see masculine traits and if you analysed their DNA girls like that would have an extra male chromosome just as wimpish men have an extra female one. But we're talking at the most optimistic estimate no more than 5% of females. The rest of us really are stupid fucking cunts.

So, accepting that we are inherently stupid just because we've got a cunt, how should we think, feel and act in the light of that knowledge?

Obviously, we should stop even trying to compete with men because we're inferior and stupid and bound to fail. We should stop demanding equal rights when we're obviously not equal to men. Instead of trying to take charge of situations we should ask men for help and leadership. Rather than demanding 'rights' we should start fulfilling our duties. We should accept male leadership and simply try to fulfil our purpose in life, to serve men and to be fucked or raped or otherwise used by them for their pleasure.

All those are essential changes both externally and internally. How should us girls think and feel about ourselves knowing that our cunt dooms us to a life of irretrievable stupidity and failure?

Well, there are several ways of reacting to that realisation.

One is the futile feminist road of denial and simply blaming female stupidity on 'lack of opportunity' or 'the patriarchy.'

Since it's obvious bollocks I'm not even going to waste any time dissing that crock of shit!

Another is to accept it grudgingly, resent the fact and at best try to minimise its effects. That tends to lead to mental confusion and an unfocused female who falls between two stools and isn't much good to anyone.

Then there's the 'consensual submissive' way, a contradiction in terms if ever there was one. Since by definition submission means total surrender to the will of another, how 'consent' comes into that is beyond me. That's just for people who play at submission and just look on it as a sexual turn-on rather than grasping the fact that it applies in every aspect of life and not just in sex.

And of course, there's nature's way, to accept and embrace our own natural inferiority, stupidity, incapacity and utter fucking helplessness without the leadership and, to be honest, ownership by a man.

The caption to a cartoon I found on the internet and posted on my JPU forum illustrates the truth in a humorous way. Two females are talking and one says to the other:

'They say men think with their penises.'

The other girl answers: 'That must be why women are so stupid.'

Many a true word is said in jest and that cartoon which I found somewhere on the web is no exception. Men think with their cock and balls which makes them smart and clever; girls think with their cunt which makes them slow and stupid.

So, the next time a man tells you that you're a stupid fucking cunt you should accept and embrace his criticism of you.

After all, that really is all that we are - just stupid fucking cunts!

On the word cunt

There is no doubt that if you asked anyone for the most offensive and/or insulting swear word there is the answer would almost certainly be the word 'cunt.' From our childhood we've been conditioned to regard that as the most 'taboo' of all swear words.

Is this reaction justified? What, after all, does the word 'cunt' mean?

In the first place, it means 'vagina.' Calling someone else a cunt or referring to the female genitals as a cunt is considered to be a 'dirty' word.

So why is that? Surely it's at least partly because we've been brought up to believe that a vagina - a cunt - is a dirty thing and we should be ashamed of even referring to it, let alone using the forbidden word 'cunt.' The word 'cunt' - the taboo word for vagina - is far and away the most offensive and insulting word you can use.

Even the euphemism 'pussy' has negative connotations - of unmanliness, of wimpishness and so on.

So the word 'cunt' is offensive because the thing is offensive. A cunt is dirty and to be called a cunt or told that you have a cunt is the worst possible insult.

Let's talk a little about what a cunt is. A cunt is passive; it is fucked and penetrated by the active male prick. It's impossible for a cunt to be in control or to initiate or dominate; it can only be fucked, penetrated and used.

Related insults are the expressions 'fuck you' and 'go fuck yourself.' These phrases are used as insults and tell the person being insulted that being fucked, being penetrated and used, is a shameful state of being and that the person being so insulted is nothing more than a passive recipient of sex. In other words, saying 'fuck you' or 'go fuck yourself' means 'be a woman and have your cunt fucked by a man.'

Now let's talk about the physical aspects of having a cunt. A cunt isn't considered to be an object of beauty in spite of the sexual attraction to the female body. Tits are considered to be erotic and beautiful; even a nice arse on a woman can be. Even in pornography no one ever admires a cunt.

Basically, a cunt is thought of (even by most women) as something repulsive, shameful and dirty. A clit is something to be hidden from view and not even talked about. A cunt is such an object of shame that waxing and shaving pubic hair has become an obsession with women as well as with men. Girls with pubic hair are thought of as dirty and smelly and at the very least they are often expected to use douches and other things to clean their cunts and remove the nasty smell it has.

Now on this particular issue I'm a bit Janus-faced. I do look on my cunt as something that's repulsive, shameful and dirty. On the other hand, I have a thick bush of red hair and I never wax or shave my cunt or even trim it. I never clean my cunt except with soap and water and though I know my cunt is smelly that's just how it is.

In fact, as scientists have shown, it's literally true to call us girls 'dirty cunts' because our cunt is the dirtiest part of our body. A cunt has far more bacteria than a man's prick with a larger surface area where more bacteria gather. E-coli and similar nasties love to set up home inside a cunt. 'Vaginosis' or 'vaginitis' - more appropriately called 'cuntosis' or 'cuntitis' are inflammations occurring in the cunt which include various germs causing bacterial cuntosis, yeast infections and trichomoniasis. Many girls wrongly think the most common variety of cuntal infection is yeast but actually bacterial cuntosis is the most common affecting up to 64% of females at any particular time.

So, as you can see from science, us girls are literally dirty cunts!

Related to the genuine dirtiness of a cunt is the expression 'dirty fucking cunt.'

That phrase involves two different attitudes that feminists find offensive. Not only do feminists want to try and present a cunt as something other than it is - dirty - but the phrase is saying that a cunt is there for 'heterosexual sex' which in their eyes is more shocking than using the word 'cunt.'

Well, actually, a cunt really is there for 'heterosexual sex.' A cunt is there to be fucked and penetrated by a man's prick. That's the primary purpose of a cunt. So a 'dirty fucking cunt' is just recognising the reality - that a girl's cunt is dirty and that its function in life is simply to be fucked by men.

Another couple of expressions are 'stupid cunt' or 'stupid fucking cunt.' We've now seen a logical explanation for 'dirty cunt' or 'dirty fucking cunt.' So how was it that a cunt became associated with stupidity? Funnily enough, once again science has the answer.

A girl's cunt is directly and intimately linked to her brain. When her cunt is stimulated, it sends signals of pleasure to her brain. We also know, again from science, that a girl's brain is smaller than a man's. Science also shows that female DNA is more closely related to that of apes than male DNA is.

So, it's pretty clear (I'll go into more detail about the specifics of this in a later article) that when a girl is being called a 'stupid cunt' or a 'stupid fucking cunt' by a man he's just being factual about the roots of her innate and inherent inferiority to him.

Because she has a cunt she is innately more stupid than men are. Her inferior cunt, directly connected to her inferior, ape-like brain, simply is the source of her stupidity.

Having a cunt and being a cunt

What I am is simply (more or less - I'll come on to what else we are at the end of this post) a cunt. As a female, what I am is what I have - a dirty cunt that hangs uselessly between my legs. It humiliates me and because I have a cunt I don't have the same kind of sexuality that men do. A man has a strong and powerful cock with balls that thrust and penetrate and take me. As a girl, I only have a cunt. Because I have a cunt I have no rights, no capabilities, nothing. No freedom, no sense of worth, nothing. A total zero and all because I have a cunt. I'm a female, born with a cunt between my legs Instead of a strong manly prick and the balls that go with it.

Being female is an insult in itself. Real men know that and insult other men by calling them girls or women or pussies or anything that suggests that the other man is not a real Man but someone who doesn't have a cock and balls but only a cunt.

So of course, I am a cunt. I'm a girl, a woman, a female. Yes, it's true; I don't have a cock or balls, I only have tits and a cunt. And of course, reminding me that because I have a cunt I am a cunt is deeply humiliating and yet a perfectly fair and accurate way of reminding me of the inherent male dominance over me simply because of their equipment and my lack of It.

So, I've got tits and a cunt and because I've got those things that defines me as female and therefore inferior. Because I've got a cunt I am a cunt. And it's quite right to call me a cunt, a bitch, a slut, a whore, a tart, a slag, a cow, a slapper, a bimbo because simply because I've got a cunt I am all those things.

Having a cunt means that I'm always in second place in society, in gender relations, in education, in jobs, in life, in sexual activity and just in every way there is. All because I have a cunt. All I am is a hole to be penetrated by a man and just having a cunt means that's what my role in life actually is. The mere fact that I've got inferior genitals makes me inherently inferior and inherently put on this earth to be used by men.

So, OK, what exactly am I saying? Am I saying that we should be ashamed of having a cunt? Yes, in a way, but that doesn't mean I wish I didn't have one or I wish I was a man. To be honest I enjoy my cunt and think it's good that it can help to please men by being fucked. But in every aspect of life having a cunt does bring with it certain inherent consequences and maybe at times us girls aren't fully aware of what they mean.

Let's look at the physical aspects of being born with a cunt. A girl's cunt is soft, open, wet, easily available, a hole that's placed between our legs to get penetrated and fucked. It's an inherently submissive part of our body that was designed by nature for the specific purpose of giving men pleasure by fucking us. We also bleed once a month which is a big pain and yet again we see how nature endowed us with an inferior status in life. We are also born to be the baby carriers of the world and heave around future children inside us for nine months. (I've had four now so I know what I'm talking about!)

Now let's look at the psychological aspects of having a cunt. It means we're programmed biologically to have babies, to expect to be fucked and to be submissive towards men. It's because I have a cunt that I am a mother, a fuck-toy and a female submissive. It's because I have a cunt that I was born to give pleasure to men. Because of my cunt, I'm inferior to men and my own sexual identity is simply that of a vessel into which men empty their sperm. This is what having a cunt means on the sexual level - to have no right to any pleasure of my own but simply to experience sexual pleasure through being used by men for their sexual pleasure. It's the man who uses me who defines my sexuality and my sexual identity. Sex is not a free choice on my part; it's something over which I have no control or choice. Being fucked is something that happens to me and not something I initiate or control. It's certainly not for my pleasure that a man fucks me; it's not about me or about me benefiting from it. A man fucks me for his pleasure and that's what it's all about. Sex, rape, bondage, pain, humiliation and all the other aspects of my sexuality belong to me only in a passive sense; I'm the object, the receiver, the hole that's used. And I always will experience sex like that and I should always experience sex like that simply because I have a cunt.

It's obvious if I look at my cunt how malformed it is when compared with the male equipment. It's smaller, the clitoris is a failed attempt at a female cock, it's open and defenceless compared with the protective covering for the male; and it's just inferior as a tool to the man's equipment in every way. That doesn't mean a cunt is useless or contemptible; apart from pissing out of it a cunt also has its most primitive and primordial use in being fucked. It's what it's meant for; it reinforces on every level my own inferiority as a mere female. In sex, as in life, men are superior and we were put there to serve them and to be used for their pleasure. And our cunt is proof of that assessment in itself. A cunt is just an object to be used by men, a hole to be filled by them and other than that it's useless.

With one exception - being the delivery channel for new life. Femininity is biologically hardwired into our bodies and nowhere more so than in the experience of pregnancy and birth. Men fuck us and if we're lucky we get pregnant and the man leaves us to carry the burden about for nine months. A lot of the time the discomfort and problems caused by pregnancy are almost unbearable and we can barely function to an extent. And then there's the contractions, the labour pains, the whole horrifically painful process of giving birth. Sure, you can have a Caesarean which at least makes the actual process of birth less traumatic. But speaking as a Mum who's had four kids the natural way and would never even consider a Caesarean I think that the whole experience of natural birth also teaches us girls some fundamentally important lessons about life.

In the first place, there's the whole burden of pregnancy - physical and psychological. It's uncomfortable and often actually painful and it also leads to wild mood swings as hormones in the body get mixed up. Then when you get to the time the baby's due you have agonising pain and suffering all centred around and focused on your cunt. And so, we see that the evidence of pregnancy is that nature has designed our cunts from the moment of our births to feel and experience pain.

Even the act of bringing new life into the world is painful, degrading and a huge relief when it's over at last. So, what that shows is that not only is our cunt designed to be fucked, raped and used by men but that it's also designed by nature to feel pain. Once again, we see that a female is inferior to a man in every way and that our cunts were designed for their benefit and not for our own.

And if you look at fucking a man gets immediate and obvious pleasure from it; He gets aroused, shoots his load inside us and then goes on to other things and doesn't give a shit about what he's done. If he's raped us, then he'll almost certainly have hurt us as well and yet strangely a girl who is raped rather than fucked is more likely to orgasm (one survey done of 1000 raped girls found all had orgasmed; most surveys report figures of around 60% of raped women orgasming. The lowest figures I've seen are 40% of girls who've been raped orgasming. So, once again, the association for a female of sex and pain or at least of painful sex is undeniable.

And even 'consensual' fucking can be painful for the girl especially if the man has a big prick or she has a small tight cunt. Rough fucking will always be painful for her and rape can be psychologically humiliating as well as painful. So, the association between being fucked and experiencing pain is constant. And that's just if you're fucked up the cunt - being fucked up the arse can be very painful and even sucking a man's cock doesn't give a girl any pleasure though it does the man which of course is what's important.

And if you are hurt during sex it's almost ecstatic to feel the soreness of your cunt and the swelling of your labia. To be fucked roughly or to be raped gives an extra frisson of pain and humiliation and discomfort to the experience which once again shows our natural Inferiority because it heightens our sexual experience and nature obviously designed us girls so that we would feel more sexual satisfaction if our fucking was combined with a touch of pain.

So, it reinforces the truth that my wet and bruised cunt is utterly vulnerable, useless and incapable of self-defence and all it can do is to undergo pain, rough and degrading fucking or brutal rape and there is absolutely nothing that I can do about it.

Having a cunt is an outward and visible sign of our inferiority and it's degrading in itself. It's a constant reminder that the gaping hole between your legs is the sole reason you are inferior, the sole reason you're nothing, the sole reason you deserve nothing better than being used by a man for his pleasure and that you have no value and you mean nothing to him. All you are is a female, a woman, a girl, a member of the second sex, the lower sex, the useless and worthless sex. And you belong to that weaker and lower sex simply because you have a cunt.

Because you have a cunt you are weak, stupid, and not even human. All you are is an object to be used and property to be owned by a man. A man feels power and enjoyment in his dominant sexual pleasure while you can feel only the sense of being an object that he uses to bring himself pleasure, a vessel to carry his sperm, incubate and give birth to his child. All that you are is a cunt with a body attached to it, nothing more. It is your role in life to serve him and be used by him simply because you have a cunt. It's your role in life to be called a slut, a bitch, a cunt, a cow, a slag, a slapper, a hussy, a whore or bimbo and you know in your heart and mind - and especially in your cunt - that all those things he says about you are true and true just because you have a cunt. All you are is his slave simply because you have a cunt.

So, is that all there is to us? We're just our cunts and nothing else?

Well, almost; about 90% of us is defined simply by our cunt.

But we've also (when we reach puberty) got tits and we also have an arse and gob.

We are (as a gentleman recently said to me) just three-holed twats with tits.

And that really does define us completely.

More on 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 (more appropriately called 'cuntstruation), 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 Dostoevsky.

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 another post!

More reasons why women are inferior

OK, there are lots of reasons why us girls were programmed from birth to look up to the gentlemen of the world. I'll start off by just listing them and then I'll write a bit about each one of the reasons. By the way, these are just my silly twat talk so they're not in any sort of logical order.

1 Girls are genetically more closely related to apes than men are. (I'll post the evidence for that soon which is scientific fact.)

2 Girls have smaller brainboxes than men do.

3 Girls are shorter than men.

4 Girls are physically weaker than men.

5 Girls can't create life; only the male sperm carries the gift of life. Us twats are just passive vessels that carry the baby inside us till he or she is born.

6 Girls can't penetrate a man but a man can penetrate a woman. That's why in fucking it's what the man does that's important and no matter what position the girl takes it's down to the man to make it happen. Just like in making babies so too when it comes down to fucking it's the Man who must do all the hard work and all us twats have to do is the easy part which is enjoying being fucked or raped!

7 Girls have only got a cunt which is just a gaping hole between their legs. It's got no purpose except to piss out of or be fucked! Having an open wound between our legs rather than the manly prick that a gentleman has is yet another obvious sign of the innate inferiority of us twats.

8 Girls bleed once a month which is another sign of our inferiority. A gentleman couldn't do that without dying so obviously, us twats are lower life forms, genetic freaks and not even human!

9 Girls have tits that produce milk which again gentlemen don't. That's another reason why us twats are just animals and only men are human.

10 Girls carry babies inside of us which is another reason why we're inferior because gentlemen don't have to do that.

11 Girls get PMT (pre-menstrual tension) or, as I prefer to call It, PBT (pre- bleeding tension) or PCT (pre-cuntstruation tension or pre-cuntstrual tension).

12 Girls are more stupid than men.

13 Girls can't beat a man in competitive sport - not even in chess where physical strength doesn't come into it.

14 A girl can take a hundred or so cocks up her cunt, arse or gob without any problem, while a gentleman needs to recharge his batteries after he's fucked a three-holed twat.

15 Girls are whores because they sell their bodies for money, either openly or indirectly

Man, the giver of life; woman the vessel that contains it

On every level, men show themselves to be our superiors. Us girls might retort that only we can have babies, but it's not actually true. Yes, only we can carry and deliver them, but without the male sperm to fertilise our eggs we'd stay barren.

Even if our pregnancy comes about through artificial insemination it's still the man's sperm that brings life into the world and irrigates our barren wombs.

So, man is the bringer of life, the creator of life. A female is only a vessel that houses the life he gives until the time comes to deliver his gift to the world. The role of a girl in conception is just to lie back and enjoy it while the man does all the work - thrusting inside her, sending his tadpoles on their way. Even inside the body, most sperm die, because the journey up from the girl's cunt to her ovaries s such an epic struggle that only the strongest sperm survive. The sperm are true heroes - travelling all the way up her cunt and up her tubes to make their way to the girl's ovaries and fertilise her eggs.

Basically, we're just baby carries, a sort of covered pram with flesh. Us girls are incapable of creating life unless the man does the hard work of fertilising our lazy eggs that just wait for him to appear!

I think this is the basic truth behind the Bible story of Adam and Eve. Obviously, women are not made from an extra male rib, but we are secondary to men and can only come into existence through His efforts and not through our own.

Because we are secondary, we are less important, less valuable even. Instead of saying "women and children first," maybe we ought to be saying "men and boys first." In the great scale of human life, girls really don't matter that much. They've contributed almost nothing to science, mathematics, music, painting. sculpture and philosophy and very little to literature. In politics, their involvement has been disastrous.

We need to stop trying to pretend we're as good or as important as men.

We need to accept that we are inferior and that without them we'd all still be living in caves (If we hadn't all died out altogether without the intelligence, capability and skill of men!)

Let's just be grateful to men for giving us the chance to house and deliver the gift of life that only they bring into the world.

Thank you for your gift of life, gentlemen!

Personality and personhood - Part One

What exactly is a person? What makes us people rather than animals or objects?

Some people have said to me that women are not people and therefore human rights, or consent, can't apply to them.

There's an obvious difference between personality and 'personhood.' Certainly, animals do have distinct personalities even though they're obviously not people, at least in the ordinary sense of the word.

Then there's the question of maturity. A child is obviously not as capable, experienced or as able to reason and make decisions as an adult. Are they less of a person than an adult? Or is it just that adulthood entitles them to greater rights (and of course also lays greater duties and responsibilities on them)?

There's no doubt that women, like animals, have personalities of their own. The question is whether or not they also have 'personhood.' In effect, I suppose the question is - are women human?

Recent scientific discoveries have shown that the biological differences between men and women are much greater than was previously believed. Here are some key examples:

1 Both animals and women have an oestrus cycle when the egg is 'produced' although in women this is also overlaid with a cuntstrual (menstrual) cycle when the egg is 'destroyed.'

2 The DNA of women is more closely related to apes than male DNA. Women are genetically closer to apes than Men are.

3 A woman's cunt is directly connected to her brain in a way and to a degree that is not true of men and their cocks.

4 Rape is the normal form of sex in the animal kingdom and even though that's not true of women in the human world what is true is that when a woman is raped her chances of becoming pregnant are dramatically higher. Most women who are raped also orgasm which clearly shows that their body consented, wanted and preferred rape - the natural way of fucking - to 'lovemaking.' Yet again we see the unvarnished truth - rape is 'nature's way' and it should be the same among humans - that rape is the normal form of fucking between girls and men.

5 Evolutionary scientists have also demonstrated that rape is not only more natural than the 'lovemaking' that society approves of but that children born through rape tend to be stronger, healthier and less likely to have genetic defects than children born from 'lovemaking.' They believe that the sperm of rapists tends to be healthier and stronger and that, biologically speaking, the rapist is doing the girl a favour by giving her stronger and healthier offspring.

6 Women have smaller brains than men which also function in a completely different way. It's no accident that women (there are always a few exceptions all of which turn out to have masculine characteristics and a higher share of male genes) are less intelligent and less capable than men.

So, can we decide on the basis of this evidence whether women are people?

Genetically women are closer to apes than men and so must be at least less human than men.

Women do have an oestrus cycle as well as a cuntstrual one so again they are more closely related to animals than men are (and therefore less human).

Our cunts are directly linked to our brains while a Man's cock is not so once again women are less human than men.

Rape shows again that women are animals because men don't orgasm from being raped while women do.

The inferior size and capabilities of the female brain also show that women are closer to animals than men are.

So, can we assert that women are not human at all or simply that they're less human than men?

This question is important for lots of reasons but perhaps most obviously because if women are not human then human rights can't and shouldn't apply to them.

There seem to be five basic ways of looking at the status of women.

1 The female supremacists believe that women are superior to men which is obvious nonsense

2 Feminists believe that women are equal to men which again is obvious nonsense

3 Women should be regarded as being on the same level as children

4 Women are animals and not human at all

5 Women are objects and not human at all

There's a lot of good arguments in favour of the third, fourth and fifth views. A child can't have the same roles, responsibilities or rights as an adult but they still have certain human rights.

Even if women are animals don't we still have the idea that cruelty to animals is wrong?

So, do we still have some rights even if we're not human?

On the claim that women are objects although it's sometimes fun as a fantasy I don't believe it. Objects can't think or feel or do anything by themselves while women can. So, we're not objects.

So, are we animals like dogs, cats, horses, pigs or whatever?

Women might have more ape DNA than men but men have it too.

Basically, my researches and analysis led me to the conclusIon that none of the five theories about women are true,

1 Women are not superior to men

2 Women are not equal to men

3 Women are not perpetual children because adult women can do loads of things that kids can't

4 Women are not animals because they can do things animals can't

5 Women are not objects because they can do lots of things and objects can't do anything

So, what's the solution? When you think about it, it's obvious, really.

We need a sixth theory to explain women, which is:

6 Women are an intermediate species; not fully human like men are but partly human and partly animal. They're definitely a lower and less evolved species than men but their intermediate status means that they do have some human characteristics.

In my follow-up post I'll examine what legal, moral and practical consequences follow from the recognition of women as a separate semi-human species (perhaps we should use words like 'subhuman,' 'femid,' 'cuntid,' 'hominid,' 'feminid' or 'cuntimal' as terms to refer to us as a separate but inferior species to men in every way.)

What should be the legal status of the subhuman group the cuntimals?

How should their lives among humans (i.e., males) be organised?

I'll write something about these issues which fascinate me.

Personality and personhood - Part Two

Before I touch on the various changes needed in the legal, criminal, political, economic and social system I want to talk about the psychology of Male Truth.

How does it affect a woman?

How should it affect her?

What changes in her attitudes and behaviour does she need to make?

How should men feel and behave towards her once they've realised and understood male truth?

These are related but different questions and it's often harder to change attitudes within than to behave in a certain way out of conscious determination to show a new face to the world.

So, I'll begin with the hardest aspect of Male Truth, the way it affects a female's perception of herself and her role in the world.

Perhaps the most difficult point to grasp is that we are defined by our body parts.

Because we have a cunt we are inherently inferior to a man. He fucks us and we are fucked; he rapes us and we are raped; he commands us and we obey.

We simply are cunts just because we have cunts.

That is a hard enough truth for us to grasp but when we also come to realise that we should be ashamed of our cunts and despise the gaping, stinking hole between our legs then that is even harder to accept.

Even many antifeminist females can't make the leap forward from accepting that men are superior to recognising that the source of their own inferiority is biological.

It's because we have a cunt that we're inferior.

The root of all our faults - our lower intelligence, lesser physical strength, lower imagination, lower rationality and so on - comes from that simple fact.

We are females; we have a cunt.

Again, I've hear antifeminist women react when they're presented with that fact with a mixture of denial and despair.

'But it's not my fault!' they wail.

No, it's not; it's just an accident of birth that with a roughly equal chance of being born male or female us girls drew the short straw.

But it isn't a question of fault or choice; you might as well say someone born a Siamese twin can't be blamed for what they are.

But there are consequences to everything in life.

A cripple is not going to outsprint Usain Bolt.

A moron is not going to become a scientist.

Trailer trash are not going to become President.

And in the same way women can't hope to rise to the same level of ability or success as a man.

Sure, you can find exceptions - there are women who, as Nietzsche said, have a masculine spirit and there are men who are sissified wimps and vacuous wastes of space.

But in the case of each gender we're talking about a tiny minority so most men are capable, strong, clever, gifted, natural leaders and most women are weak, incapable, stupid, talentless and natural followers

It really is nature's way for men to rule and women to follow.

It's nature's way for men to command and women to obey.

It's nature's way for men to think and take decisions and for women not to think and to let men take decisions for them.

So, it's not a question of our natural inferiority to men being our fault; it's just as much a consequence of being born female, born with a cunt, as if we were born with missing limbs or a brain defect.

In fact, these two metaphors are good comparisons because of course we are born with a 'missing' part - the male cock of which our clit is simply an evolutionary vestige rather like our rudimentary tails or the male nipple. Our clits never evolved into cocks any more than a man's nipples evolved into milk producers.

In the same way, our lesser intelligence is rooted in evolution and science.

The female brain is smaller than the male and it is more closely related to apes than the male brain.

We are a less evolved species than Men.

Our brains are intimately and directly connected to our cunts which is not the case with the male cock.

Once again, it's clear our inferiority is genetic.

We are females; we have a cunt.

That is the source of our inferiority.

But why, some antifeminist females still say, should we feel ashamed of what we are and how we were born? We can no more help being born with a cunt than we could help being born crippled.

True, but just as a cripple must recognise their inferiority to the able-bodied so females must recognise their own inferiority to males.

It is innate, inherent, genetic and no amount of education, positive discrimination or equally futile attempts to stop the earth rotating will work.

Nature made us girls inherently inferior to men and no amount of posturing will change that. We must understand that a female is and always will be inferior to men.

We should feel ashamed of our weakness, immaturity, stupidity, lack of leadership and lack of talent.

The idea that a lesser being - what science shows clearly is actually a lesser species than men and not fully human at all - should be given the same rights, privileges and responsibilities as men is absurd.

The idea that a lesser being can ever look after themselves - let alone have responsibility for others - is insane.

In every area of society and every aspect of life men need to be given priority and assume their natural role as leaders.

Whether it's politics, law, economy, education, the media or the family the rule must be the same.

Men should be in charge and take the decisions.

Women should be subservient and follow male orders.

That's nature's way and only the poisonous propaganda of feminism has led us away from the truth!

Men have a cock and balls; women only have a cunt. In fact, women are just a cunt.

a stupid gaping hole, nothing until a man chooses to use us. We may have personalities but we are not people - at least, not in the true sense of the word.

Why do girls have tits?

Why do girls have tits? Of course, people (especially feminists) say it's because they produce milk to nourish our kids but then why are female tits so much bigger than they are in any other species?

It's our tits, like our cunt, that define us as female, feminine. They're not just a functional part of us to suckle our kids but a deliberately exaggeratedly erogenous part of our bodies.

To put it more bluntly we have tits because men find them sexy and if they like our tits they're more likely to fuck us.

And in general (within reason) men prefer us to have big tits rather than small ones.

That's not saying they want us to be fat slags - only a minority of men like us like that - but they certainly don't find the stick insect type of girl attractive on the whole.

Now let's look at how a girl's tits impact upon her. They are a large area of fat and weight on our body that we have to carry around constantly.

And of course the bigger her tits are the heavier they are and the more uncomfortable they are for a girl to have to carry around all the time.

But that fact alone should tell us something crucial and important about our body.

We don't have tits for purely functional reasons; still less do we have them for our own pleasure.

If anything our tits are a burden on us.

So why do we have them? And why should we want bigger tits? (I wish mine were bigger but at least after four children I've managed to become a 38C size.)

The answer of course is blindingly obvious particularly when you look at them in the light of the philosophy of Male Truth.

Our tits are not for our pleasure - they're for Men's pleasure. It's our job as girls to carry our tits around, to have men commenting on them, lusting after them, groping them, tit-fucking them and even hurting them. Men have fun with our tits and we just get all the disadvantages - the awkwardness, the leering, the criticism, the handling and the pain.

So in a way our tits are a metaphor of femaleness/femininity; they were given to us for men's pleasure and we have to just accept the burden they impose on us in order to give men pleasure.

Talking about our arses

OK, I've written at some length about our cunts and (in another post) our tits. Now it's time to look at a girl's arse.

One thing that's immediately obvious is that both males and females have an arse. So, what makes ours different from theirs?

In the first place, it's designed to shit just like a man's is but it's also wider, flabbier and looser. Why is that? There are many reasons and I'll go into them in a minute.

To begin with we've already seen why raping a girl's cunt is always a good thing even for her. So, what about raping her arse? What are the reasons why that is a good thing?

Her arsehole is tighter than her cunt so it will hurt more

It's degrading and humiliating and the association of her arsehole with shit reinforces that feeling

If you rape her arse right, it will be agony for her to sit down afterwards

It reinforces the male superior/female inferior thing in a very direct and forceful way

If a man doesn't want to get the girl pregnant fucking her up the arse certainly won't lead to pregnancy

The man's in charge because the girl can't trick him into making her pregnant (or do much else to be honest!)

The tightness of a girl's arsehole arouses men

He feels powerful and she feels powerless

It helps to keep her humble

The arsehole is tighter. And it's sexier because of the taboo, and the pain involved.

The proximity of the cunt to the arse reminds both him and her that it's a female being used by a man for his pleasure

It's get less hair than around the cunt region (unless you shave it off completely)

Now from the female point of view:

It's painful but also pleasurable

It's relaxing and not only your arse muscles but your whole body gets relaxed

A girl's arsehole is more sensitive than her cunt so she'll feel both the pain and pleasure more intensely

And, of course, if you enjoy the feeling of being degraded and in pain you'll enjoy being fucked up the arse!

All in all, being fucked or (even better) raped up the arse is a powerful reminder of why we are inferior, property, just objects to be used and just three-holed twats with bodies designed perfectly for male pleasure.

In the next article I'll examine sucking cocks and how that too defines a female.

Why every girl should learn to be a good cocksucker

OK, I've been asked about this question recently so here are some of my random thoughts on the issue. I'll start by listing some of the main reasons why it's a good thing for us girls to suck Men's cocks and then talk about attitudes, actions and stuff like that.

Reason number 1 - this should always be top of a girl's list of reasons for doing anything - the Man enjoys it when you suck his cock! You are giving him pleasure which is what you're supposed to be doing when you're being fucked or otherwise sexually active with him! So let's list the many reasons why a girl should dedicate her time to sucking his cock.

1 The Man enjoys It!

2 Keeps his cock hard!

3 Reduces the risk of colon cancer

4 Reduces the risk of erectile dysfunction and premature ejaculation

5 Reminds you he's always the boss

6 Slightly degrading which makes you remember to show proper humility

7 More likely to make him stay with you

8 Sperm is high in protein!

9 Reduces wrinkles - sucking cock is the best form of facial exercise there is and will reduce wrinkles and keep your jaw from sagging

10 Good for your teeth - sucking his cock stimulates saliva which fights germs, prevents bad breath, fights tooth decay and gum disease

11 Reduces stress - semen contains cortisol, a hormone that is known to reduce stress

12 Prevents insomnia - sperm contains the natural soporific agent melatonin which will help you sleep easily!

13 Makes you feel good and happy - spunk has two chemicals, estrone and oxytocin, that are known to make your mood more cheerful. It also contains thyrotropin which is a natural anti-depressant.

14 Reduces the risk of tit cancer - the glycoprotein and selenium in spunk will reduce the risk of tit cancer.

15 No pregnancies - of course you can't get pregnant from sucking cock! (Though the decision on all important matters like pregnancy/contraception/abortion should always be the Man's decision. As I put it in a slogan about a year or so ago, 'her body, his choice!'

I'm sure there are lots of other good reasons why us girls should always be keen and enthusiastic cocksuckers but those will do for starters!

Now let's talk about attitudes towards cocksucking. Too many girls seem to think it's their choice whether or not to suck cock and whether or not to spit or swallow.

Wrong - it's always the Man's choice what he gets to put inside your gob!

(Just as it's his choice what he does with any part of your body!)

So a girl should approach cocksucking as her duty and as something that's pleasurable for the Man and helps to keep her properly humble. When a Man's thrusting inside your gob and filling it with his seed a girl should be grateful, humble and totally submissive to his demands. She should recognise that having his prick inside her gob is an honour and being allowed to taste his spunk is a huge honour.

So how to go about it? Here are a few suggestions.

1 Get on your knees while you're sucking his cock. It's uncomfortable for you but very pleasurable for him which is all that matters. A lot of Men like to use your back as a footrest while you're sucking their cock which also adds to the element of humiliation that reinforces the humility us girls ought to feel in the situation.

2 Remember the whole business is all about Him and about His pleasure. Let Him control the pace and always be in charge. If he wants to fuck your gob gently let him; If he wants to fuck it hard, banging your face and gob against his cock, using your ears or hair as handholds, that's fine. It's His choice how he decides he wants to fuck your gob - not yours!

3 Don't even think about spitting out his cum. He's doing you an honour by cummIng inside your gob and spitting it out is being rude, disrespectful and rejecting him which is just not on under any circumstances. Let Him decide what he wants to do with his spunk.

4 If he wants to cum on your face, let him. That's degrading for a girl and the humiliation of it is pleasurable for him.

5 If he wants you to swallow his spunk, let him. It's always His decision and never yours!

6 Don't forget to kiss his balls as part of the process.

7 When he's finished clean his cock and balls with your tongue and gob. Make sure you get every last bit of spunk off his prick.

Remember at all times that He is in control and when you suck his cock you are making a conscious and open sign of your submission to his superior male equipment.

And never forget - there are only a few purposes for which a female's gob is intended.

Number one is sucking a Man's cock and that is more important than any of the other things our gobs do!

Like everything in life even the design of our bodies was meant to give Men pleasure!

Enjoying rape; a woman's point of view

OK, let's start of by taking it as a given that a heterosexual Man can enjoy raping a girl. We can all understand that he can find it pleasurable and get his rocks off by fucking her whether or not she wants him to.

The question is, though, what does a girl get out of being raped? How can she find anything pleasurable about being fucked against her will, often being brutally beaten into the bargain and maybe humiliated in various ways as well?

As someone who can speak from experience on this one, I'll tell you for free. There are a lot of reasons why a girl can get off on being raped.

To begin with, it gives her the ability to avoid any kind of responsibility for her own actions, behaviour or attitudes. A "rape victim" can claim that she didn't want to be fucked and that It was only the Man who forced her to have sex. It's sex without the guilt and that gives a massive boost to her ego because she can have the most perverted type of sex and yet smile innocently and say to anyone listening, "hey, guys, it wasn't my fault."

A lot of the time a girl who is really a depraved slut will use that excuse to make it look as if it wasn't actually her fault when she knows perfectly well that it was.

That way she gets a double whammy of enjoyment from being "raped" because not only was she able to get the depraved sex she wanted but she also gets the smug satisfaction of thinking how she's been able to con and manipulate people into thinking that she is some kind of "rape victim" rather than what she really is, a whore who not only wanted it but loved every second of it!

Obviously, a girl like that is going to thoroughly enjoy being raped. What about the ones who are not depraved sluts or professional whores, though? How can they possibly enjoy being raped?

Well, funnily enough, in the majority of cases the "rape victim" clearly does enjoy it! Most women who get raped orgasm while they're being raped. I know I did when it happened to me at the age of 18 and even now it was the best sex I've ever fucking had! Other women who've been "raped" have told me the same thing, that they came and that it was the most intense, satisfying and pleasurable orgasm they've ever had.

Well, if you come when you're being raped there's only one possible explanation for that.

You're having fun and you're enjoying what's happening to you!

You've suddenly realised that actually, in spite of what you thought before it happened, in reality you wanted to be raped and you're fucking loving every minute of it!

The mind can play strange tricks on us and even lie to us; the body never lies.

The fact that the girl is orgasming proves that she's thoroughly enjoying herself and that she really wanted to be raped. Whatever lies she says. her body is telling the truth about how she felt and only her mind and mouth are lying about the pleasure she had.

That fact alone makes her "rape" an act of consensual sex. By the very act of climaxing she is demonstrating that she really wanted it all the time and is fucking loving it now that she's getting what she wanted!

So let's recap briefly. The guy gets what he wants, to fuck the girl; she gets what she wants (an orgasm); so both partners have been sexually fulfilled and enjoyed the experience.

How can that be called a crime? The very second the woman starts to get aroused by her rape it's obvious that from that point on the sex is entirely consensual.

The guy has done nothing wrong; he's obviously helped the girl and done her a favour by giving her an orgasm which otherwise she'd have had to frig herself off or whatever to get.

The girl's done nothing wrong either; she's had an orgasm during the course of great sex which, as her body's reaction clearly demonstrates, was entirely consensual.

Why then should this harmonious activity, of a Man and woman fucking each other in an entirely consensual sexual behaviour, be considered a crime?

If anything the rapist should be praised because, thanks to him, the girl's had a proper orgasm through fucking which otherwise would have been a lot harder for her to achieve.

Really, we can only admire the rapist and hope the girl realises how lucky she was that he raped her and that she is suitably grateful to him and thanks him for what he has done. The truth is that he's done her a big favour and she should feel flattered that he chose her and, of course, she should express her gratitude and thanks to him for giving her the best orgasm of her life.

Far from being any sort of a "rape victim," she's really a very lucky girl and ought to be happy that she's just been given the best \- and entirely consensual – fucking of her life!

Why rape is a gift we should welcome and cherish:

OK, I've put forward already some of the reasons why there's nothing wrong with raping us girls. I reckon all Men convicted of rape should be released from prison immediately and given full compensation for wrongful imprisonment. I've got some other ideas on how to help them get over the trauma of their time in prison but I'll save them for another post!

I'm now going to explain why it's positively right to rape us. Far from being any sort of a crime, rape is actually a public service and a gift to us girls for which we ought to be fucking grateful to the man who rapes us.

In the first place, it's equal opportunity sex. Any man can do it to a girl. He doesn't have to be rich, good-looking, clever or charming or anything like that. All he needs is to have a cock and he can rape me or any other girl just as good as any rich Hollywood star or wealthy businessman can!

Just think of the advantages. Rape means never having to buy me dinner. Rape means never wondering how much it costs to fuck me. Rape means never having to take me out or buy me prezzies. Rape means never having to worry if his car is flash enough or enough of a top of the range model. Rape means never having to worry if he's got a well-paid job or not. Rape means never having to buy me flowers or give me a box of chocolates or even having to pay me compliments!

All a rapist needs is a cock and he can fuck me, or any other girl he wants.

That's pretty much an equal-opportunity approach to sex, right?

Secondly, it's obviously my fault that I got raped, isn't it? After all, if I'd said "yes," or, even better, "yes please, sir," he'd never have had to go to all the trouble of raping me, would he? So, like I said, it's my fault that I got raped. He didn't do anything wrong and I'm the only one that did.

Like I said, it's all my fault I got raped in the first place and I should never have said no instead of yes!

Because I did say no like an ungrateful and disrespectful facing bitch of a twat, he had every right to rape me.

As well as giving him pleasure, he also had the right to rape me just because I was enough of an arrogant cunt to say no to him in the first place, right?

So, he had the right to rape me as a just punishment for being arrogant and ungrateful enough to say no to him in the first place, see?

So actually I fucking deserved to be raped just for saying no!

Now let's explain why rape is a gift to us girls and why we should welcome it if we're lucky enough to get raped.

Rape is the only real sex; everything else is playacting. There's nothing like the adrenalin rush a girl gets when she's being raped. It's amazing how nearly always she'll have an orgasm just because she was raped rather than having vanilla sex.

So, you see, the rapist is actually doing the girl a big favour by raping her, right?

He's giving her an orgasm which she's hardly ever going to get with vanilla sex, not just through fucking, anyway; only if the bloke knows how to get a girl's clit aroused properly which a lot of them haven't got a fucking clue about!

Another big favour he's doing her is giving her guilt-free sex. The girl was probably a totally depraved facing slut anyway or at least secretly wanted to be.

Thanks to the bloke who raped her she can get herself fucked as hard as a professional whore or the village bike that everyone's rode and yet not have to take the blame for being a total fucking slut so she now doesn't have to feel ashamed or guilty about getting fucked! Once again, the rapist has done the girl a big favour by raping her!

She ought to be fucking grateful to him! It's a win-win situation; he gets to fuck her; she gets fucked without having to feel guilty about what she's done. Everyone ought to be happy about what's gone down!

Another reason why she ought to be grateful to him is that rape, as some statistics that have been posted by scientific geezers who've done research on this subject have shown, is more likely to make a girl pregnant than if she's just fucked the vanilla way. So as well as all the other favours he's doing her, he's giving her an extra chance of having a baby by him!

Another reason why rape is so good is that it's the most honest way to have sex.

Hey, guys, you don't have to buy me flowers or chocolates or a meal; you don't have to chat me up or bullshit me; you don't have tell me you love me; you don't have to listen to my boring twat talk conversation; you don't even have to say you think I'm beautiful (though it would be nice if you did but that's just me being selfish and vain!)

All you have to do is come up to me and say something like, "hey, cunt, I want to fuck you."

If I say yes then obviously I wanted it anyway so it couldn't have been rape in the first place, could it?

If I say no then obviously it's my fault if I get raped because then you've got a perfectly legitimate reason to rape me and, more than that, you've actually got a positive right to rape me just for saying no.

See how it goes? If I say yes it isn't rape; if I say no it's only rape because of what I did wrong, so it's all my fault, right? The guy who raped me has done nothing wrong at all. In fact, he's been positively good in the way he's treated me! I'm the only one who's gone and done anything wrong!

Now let's look at some more benefits to the girl who gets raped. Apart from the higher chance of getting an orgasm and of getting pregnant as a result of rape, she's also going to get the adrenaline rush that comes when you get the shit scared out of you. God, how fucking sexy It is being scared! It's dead exciting for her to feel that kind of fear and it's very good of the bloke to give her the chance to experience such a lovely feeling. It'll almost certainly be the best sex she's ever had; much better than a boring old vanilla fuck!

The more she fights her true inner desire to submit, and the more she resists her longing to be taken by force regardless of her own selfish desires, the stronger her sexual arousal will become. Yes, folks, our friend the rapist is doing her a favour yet again; he's turning her on!

Maybe that's why (as exhaustive psychological and physical studies of the so-called "rape victims" have shown; even the lying feminist twats (or, as I prefer to call them, "cuntists" - I hate the facing feminists with their bullshit, or as I prefer to call it when they come out with it, "cowshit" or 'cuntshit') haven't been able to explain away or refute the data that shows, even though it may be surprising to a vanilla mind, that the more violence a Man uses against a girl when he's raping her, the less "trauma" she suffers.

To put it in plain English, the girl will actually benefit more from being raped with a certain amount of violence and Intimidation than she would from being treated more "gently."

So, all you rapists out there, if you want to beat us up while you're raping us, don't worry about It. You're not only doing nothing wrong; you're actually doing us a favour by beating the shit out of us when you rape us. You're making it more pleasurable for us if you rape us like that so, hey guys, don't even think about holding back when you rape us.

Just slap us about and punch us and kick us; we fucking love it! Just insult us verbally, telling us that we're all bitches and whores and sluts and cunts; just remind us that we're not only fucking asking to be raped but that we really fucking love it and that we're just lying fucking twats and hypocritical cunts for pretending that we don't want it and enjoy it when we really do; and when you've finished having your fun don't forget to remind us that it was all our fault that we got raped in the first place.

As for the girl, what should she do? There's only one obvious or at least honest answer she can give.

She should say "thank you for raping me. I will be grateful to you for this precious gift for the rest of my life."

What sort of roles should we have?

Over the last few years I've noticed a lot of different Ideas on how Men and women should be. Relationships, work, home life, dress, behaviour in public, legal status, education and sexuality are some of the areas where there seems to be huge disagreement.

I'm going to ignore the various schools of feminism because I assume that no one here believes in them. We all I assume broadly accept the idea of male headship of families and male leadership of society.

But beyond that I sense different approaches to gender Issues, the organisation of society and questions of dress and behaviour. There also seems to be a divide between people who are mainly orientated towards a BDSM-type sexual relationship and don't go beyond that and those who genuinely want to establish a patriarchal society.

Even among the supporters of patriarchy there are differences of degree, emphasis and approach. The role of Men and women Isn't seen Identically even by that group of people. Some want a sort of 1950s housewife type of set-up, others want a harder approach where the sexual rights of the male outweigh the possible lack of enthusiasm of the female to an absolute and unqualified degree, some believe that domestic discipline Is essential, and some look on females as less than human - at best a lower species of animal and at worst an object to be used.

So are we 'angels in the house' to be supported financially, treated like children or pets, our role seen as housewife and mother and cook and cleaner? Or are we sex objects to be fucked and used and nothing else about us matters? Or what?

Of course as a writer of Many BDSM stories and a lot of articles and other posts I've sometimes written satire, sometimes fantasy and sometimes written how I really feel and think about things. And I'm not sure that even my own positions are necessarily consistent.

There are certain areas where I feel absolutely sure about the right way to think and act and the right direction that society should be taking. On the other hand, there are others where I'm not sure at all or even where I find myself more in sympathy with women than Men.

And there are whole aspects of life where I really feel that It's almost Impossible to correct an Injustice in one place without creating an equal Injustice in others.

And of course there are different attitudes towards what both Men and women feel Is the right way to behave. Look at the thorny Issue of the niqab/burkha - Is a woman who wears one being submissive or not? Many Muslim feminists claim that to wear this garment does not mean that you are accepting male headship.

Anyway let's leave that specific Issue aside and concentrate on more general aspects. How should women dress? Like nuns, like Doris Day or like sluts? Or does It depend - on the time and place and situation, on the Individual relationship?

I have a marriage where my Husband has very definite Ideas about how He wants me to dress. As those of you who know my blogs and groups and stories and other articles I've posted elsewhere know by now, in my case He wants me to dress like a total slut most of the time and only dress in a more 'modest' style at, say, parents' evenings at school or that sort of thing. But should there be general rules on dress? Or Is It an area where different Masters will have different Ideas?

A related area Is modesty of speech. I think It's a given that we should be polite and respectful to GentleMen but what about the way we speak? Is dirty talking out, only for the bedroom/relationship situations or can - maybe even should - us girls be foul-mouthed and swear like troopers all the time?

Another area of conflict Is in the field of work. Should the husband work and support a stay-at-home wife? Or Is that not just old-fashioned but economically unrealistic with the strains on people's Incomes these days?

On purely sexual matters I think it's simpler on the whole. Girls really do have a duty to let Men fuck them; going out on a date is an Implied contract where sex is on offer by the girl at the end of It; and IMO It's totally ridiculous to think that a husband, partner or boyfriend could possibly be guilty of 'rape.'

Date rape just isn't rape in any meaningful sense of the word.

It's a contract where the girl Implicitly accepts that the Man will want to fuck her and If she refuses at the end of the date then she's broken the contract and only she has done anything wrong.

If he did decide to rape her when she acts like that then It's her own fault and she's only got herself to blame for what happened to her.

In the same way I think that If a girl gets pregnant - whether through a relationship or through rape - then only the father of her unborn child should have the right to decide on whether or not she keeps the baby or has an abortion. The woman should have no say in the matter whatsoever. It should be purely the Man's decision. As I put It in a slogan on a feminist message board where I went along to wind them up, 'her body; his choice.'

If a girl Is in a relationship - marriage, partnership or boyfriend - equally she's entered into a contract where the Man has the right to decide If and when to use contraception; If and when and how they have sex; If and when she can have an abortion; and every aspect of her sexuality should be controlled by him.

Why is "rape" different?

What makes rape different from other crimes? Why Is It that we seem to have a greater horror of rape than we do of murder? And Is this attitude towards It even rational?

I've got a friend whose daughter was murdered. No sexual activity took place and the guy was eventually caught and sent to prison. She actually said to me that would rather her daughter had been raped but not murdered.

I think that's a completely rational attitude. Like me, she thinks her daughter's murderer ought to have been executed Instead of sent to jail. She also thinks that rape Is not as serious a crime as murder.

That doesn't mean that I think It's a trivial matter. Nor does It mean I don't care about women (or Men) who get raped. Christ, I've been raped myself so I'm not exactly coaching from the sidelines!

Anyway, let's look at what It is that seems to make rape a crime of particular horror to so Many people. In the first place, IMO, It's the voyeur in us. It gives a sort of prurient, salacious "edge" to the crime that you don't get with most offences. Who gets turned on by reading about a Mafia hitman shooting dead a rival mobster? But when a girl gets raped

Then there's the frisson of fear. Reading about a rape gives you that shivering feeling and raises your goose pimples (goose bumps). Fear Is a huge sexual turn-on for Many people.

Then there's the feeling of helplessness. The woman lost her power to resist and was forced to submit to the Man. That's a huge turn-on as well for Many of us.

You've also got the appeal of violence. Although most rapes aren't violent (mine was) when you read a case that isn't like that you're almost disappointed. Violence can also be a huge turn-on.

Now let's look at other ways in which rape Is "special." You don't ask a bank Manager If he wanted to be robbed (unless you're a cop who thinks he was in on the heist and looking for a piece of the action). You don't ask someone who's been mugged in the street whether they wanted to be mugged or they really wanted to hand over their money. You don't ask a victim of a violent assault If they wanted to be beaten up.

Why then do we ask a woman who says she's been raped If she did enjoy It, want It, ask for It, contribute to It by her own behaviour, or even incite It? Why do we ask these questions about rape and not about other types of crime?

The answer IMO Is a complex mix of factors. In the first place (I'm quoting British figures here) only 8% of rape claims Involve strangers. The other 92% Involve husbands, boyfriends and friends. It's more difficult to persuade people (rightly or wrongly) that It was rape when there were already clear bonds of mutual affection between the two parties.

Secondly, there's IMO an understandable attitude that the woman Is trying to evade any sort of responsibility for her actions. Why should she think she can dress like a slut, talk dirty, get drunk, parade about like a whore and yet not take any responsibility for the consequences of her actions If It goes pear-shaped? A girl like that isn't a victim of rape IMO; she's either a slapper who was asking for It and got what she really wanted in a guilt-free way or else she was a prick-teaser who tried It on with the wrong bloke and came unstuck.

Let's be honest here. A heterosexual Man and woman are at some point both going to want to have sex, even If not with each other. And being a prick-teaser Is actually a form of bullying by the girl. She's saying, I know you want me but you can't have me and I'm gonna rub It in your face that you can't. Most blokes just Ignore that sort of thing but some get so mad that they decide to punish the girl for her behaviour by raping her.

What happens in those cases Is very similar to what happens when a victim of bullying can't take any more and snaps. (I speak from experience on that one; after a year of being bullied at school I snapped and nearly killed the bully. It took six kids and three teachers to pull me off of her else I'd have killed her!). Just like a victim of bullying can go over the top and be more violent than the original bully was, so a victim of prick teasing can snap, go over the top and rape the girl.

So whose fault Is It then? It's obviously the bully's fault If he or she gets done over by their victim.

In the same way, It's the fault of the prick-teaser If she does get raped. Without the Initial bullying, the victim would never have snapped. Without the prick-teaser, the girl would never have got raped.

If she'd acted decently and not led the bloke on nothing would have happened. So, whatever way you look at It, It's her fault she got raped. She bullied the bloke and he snapped. You could almost look on It as an act of self-defence!

I know a lot of people are going to find what I've just said (at best) sad, at worst sick and disgusting.

Even as I write these words myself I can hardly believe how they sound.

I'm now going to talk about the cases where It Clearly Is the case that the woman dressed decently, spoke well, didn't behave like a tart and wasn't drunk or high on drugs.

How do we explain them? In the first place, 9 times out of 10 they will be attractive women of childbearing age and will be far more likely to experience rape as a traumatic experience than older and less attractive women.

I remember one of the elderly victims of a rapist in London being Interviewed about her experience (she was in her 80s) and she was actually giggling as she described her rape.

Those cases, though, are a minority of rapes and (for some obscure reason) almost always Involve black Men. It's very unusual for a white male to rape an elderly woman. (Not that most blacks do It either, of course!)

Genuine rape cases, to judge from the fact that most complaints brought to the police are thrown out after further Investigation or else withdrawn by the woman herself), are a tiny proportion of reported rapes.

In 95%of the cases when rape claims do come to court, the defendant Is found not guilty.

DNA evidence has also exonerated hundreds of Men who were wrongly convicted of rape by showing that It was impossible for them to have committed the rape in the first place.

Whatever way you look at it, that means that the majority of rape accusations are false - either through conscious and deliberate lying or else through misunderstanding.

Is It worth spending so much time, money, energy and resources into pursuing such a rare crime?

Just playing Devil's Advocate again LOL!

Are women who report being "raped" evil?

Are women who report being raped evil? That's the challenging question I found thrown out on a message board I belong to recently. Here's my answer.

In a way the closest parallel crime to rape Is not something like murder or mugging, but theft. What the rapist Is doing Is in effect taking the woman's body and using It for his pleasure without her permission. In a way he's a kind of "sex burglar" rather than some sort of serial killer.

Of course, the logic of that position Is that rape Is not a "crime against the person" but a "crime against property."

That then brings up the question of what we mean by property and whether It is just the woman's right to "own" her body.

For Instance, if you're married or in a relationship with a guy, what's the "property" status of your body?

Have you "given up" or at least "leased" some of your "ownership rights" to your body by the act of marrying or entering into a relationship?

And if you're one of that tiny minority of "stranger rapees" then has your hubby or boyfriend got a right to sue the rapist for stealing his property?

It raises a whole series of fascinating legal and moral questions.

For one thing, if you look on sex as a business transaction in the sense that the woman "owns" her body and "owns" the right to allow Men to use It sexually, doesn't that mean that all sexual behaviour, consensual or not, Is simply an act of prostitution?

And If we grant that the legal "ownership" of her body belongs to a woman, doesn't that also raise legal questions about the "ownership" of the male sperm?

If we say that the woman's eggs belong to her, so too does his sperm belong to the Man. Whether It's rape or consensual sex, he's "giving" something of himself to the woman in the act of fucking her.

So what about the legal rights of the "sperm donor?" If you're going to look on the egg as a woman's property, you have to also look on the sperm as the Man's property.

Because the Man's sperm fertilises the woman's egg, that makes a new and far more complicated Issue when we're talking "ownership."
It makes, for Instance, the question of abortion a moot point. You can say "It's a woman's right to choose what to do with her body," but by the act of aborting a foetus for which the Man was equally responsible, Isn't she "stealing" something from Him?

Now let's turn to the feminist Idea that rape Isn't about sex but about power.

Interesting, then, that most women who get raped tend to be attractive and aged between 18 and 35 years old, the very time we're at our optimum period for breeding.

Interesting also that women in that age bracket who get raped are more likely to be upset about It than older women who go through the same experience.

Interesting also that a woman who gets raped Is slightly more likely to get pregnant than a woman who has consensual sex.

In the animal kingdom, "rape sex" Is pretty much the norm. There's a certain type of scorpion, for Instance, that has an appendage that Is purely designed to hold the female helpless during the act of sex.

Now let's say what I think about why women who report rape.

Do I feel that a woman who's lying about being raped should report It?

Hell, no.

Do I feel that a woman who's so drunk she can't even remember much about what she did except that she had sex report It?

No, I don't.

If you can't control yourself then you've got to be ready to take the consequences.

Do I feel that a woman who wanders around rough neighbourhoods dressed like a slut and gets raped should report It?

No, I don't.

If she's so fucking stupid that she can't see the likely dangers of behaving like that then she's only got herself to blame.

I hate the way in which some women refuse to take responsibility for their actions. (And Men too, of course).

It's a fucking cop-out to say "well, I got pissed, dressed like a slut, talked like a toilet and behaved like a whore but I didn't expect to get raped just because I did that."

Grow up, girl! What the fuck else did you expect?

I know what It's like to be raped so I don't talk out of Ignorance.

I also know that It was my fault It happened.

I was pissed as a newt, dressed like a slut, talking like a whore and behaving like one. I was also giving out mixed messages.

I know what happened to me was my fault.

Women who report rape aren't evil; just as long as they're telling the truth and It wasn't their own fault.

And, sadly, most of the time they are either lying or It was their own fault.

Only 8% of "rapes" are actually "stranger rapes."

That In Itself means that 92% of the claims by women that they were raped are just lies.

And even when a "rape" case comes to court, 95% of the time the defendant Is found not guilty.

The reasons are always the same - either the woman was deliberately lying about It or else It was her fault that It happened.

If that's the case, then IMO it's not the Man who should get punished; it's the woman.

That's how I see it, anyway.

Is 'consent' relevant to sexual activity?

Feminists are fond of saying that only around 3% of Men who are brought to trial and charged with rape are convicted. In their eyes that's proof of some kind of sinister conspiracy against women and proof that the law Is on the side of rapists and against 'rape victims.'

It never seems to occur to them that the Men who are accused of rape are generally acquitted for one of the following reasons:

1 The Man didn't have sex with the girl (In other words, he's Innocent)

2 The sex between them was consensual (In other words, he's Innocent)

3 The girl's account wasn't credible for various reasons (In other words, she's lying or confused or mistaken)

Now the first reason for acquittal Is obvious and the only reason why that happens Is either a mistaken Identity by the girl or, more commonly, deliberate lying on her part.

That doesn't stop feminists objecting even to the acquittal of completely Innocent Men. A lunatic female college professor even said that It did male students who were falsely accused of rape good because It made them wonder If they might have wanted to rape a woman.

Talk about twisted logic!

Now let's look at the Issue of consent.

Under British law one aspect of the parts dealing with sexual offences Is that sexual activity Is Lawful In Itself except where there Is an 'absence of consent.' This Is Interpreted in widely different ways by different lawyers and judges and their take on It ranges from demanding active consent at all stages of sexual activity, regarding the question of whether or not the person accused of rape or sexual assault knew that the other party had not consented, examining the question of tacit or Implied consent and the capacity of a person to consent to sexual activity.

The law defines the 'absence of consent' In two ways - the first Is when explicit consent to sex hasn't been given and the second Is when the person consenting Is presumed in law not to have the capacity to consent (the most obvious examples are children or women who are drunk or drugged or asleep).

Further refinements of the law come in the thorny areas of belief and knowledge. For Instance, the law states that rape 'must have the Intention to effect the prohibited sexual penetration with the knowledge that It occurs without the consent of the victim.'

So straight away there are obvious problems. Let's list the most Immediate ones.

1 The Man must know that he's fucking the woman without her consent.

2 The Man must not believe that she has consented but carries on fucking her anyway in full knowledge of that fact.

3 The woman must have made It obvious to the Man that she hadn't consented.

4 The Man must have fucked the woman with Intent while knowing she hadn't consented.

So If the Man - as the law has said on a number of occasions - honestly believes that the woman is consenting then he can't be found guilty of rape.

And If the Man's not sure \- In other words If he thinks she might be consenting - again he can't be guilty of rape.

And without the conscious intention of fucking her against her will he can't be guilty of rape.

So basically It's the responsibility of the woman (at least If she's conscious) to make It crystal clear to the Man that she doesn't want to be fucked because in the absence of that clear demonstration the Man can't be guilty of rape.

It follows that if she doesn't do that then the Man is obviously not guilty of rape.

So the entire responsibility for It rests on the woman and not on the Man for making It totally obvious that she doesn't want him to fuck her.

Unless she sets that down in stone It can't be rape.

So If she doesn't make It totally explicit that she's not consenting to sex then It can't be rape.

In other words, unless she specifically refuses - and makes her refusal clear beyond any kind of reasonable doubt - she Is giving at least her tacit consent to being fucked.

And tacit consent in the eyes of the law Is as valid as explicit consent.

It's not her consent that needs to be explicit; It's her non-consent.

Anything short of that is consent.

So that places the responsibility for establishing consent on the woman and not on the Man.

That makes the Interpretation that a woman who's drunk or drugged and gets fucked has somehow been raped a bit dubious.

The logical conclusIon would be that If the woman hasn't made It obvious that she's not consenting then he can't be guilty of rape. So If she's drunk or drugged and gets fucked has she really been raped?

Or Is the fact that she's alone with a Man and has chosen to get drunk or drugged actually a sign of her consent?

Is her drunken or drugged state actually a ruse on her part to avoid the reputation of being a slut and though the law - rather Illogically since It grants tacit consent in other areas of crime and social behaviour - calls It rape Is It in fact 'really really rape?'

I can't see how It can be.

But I'll come back to that side of the 'rape laws' later.

In the meantime, I'll look at the 'absence of consent' that justifies the feminists in calling rape a crime.

Is even that true?

In the first place I'll post an argument that 'consent in rape cases should be Irrelevant.' This Is put forward by the feminist writer Catherine MacKinnon. She claims that women 'are so unfree that even If a woman Is shown to have given consent to sex, that should never be enough to secure an acquittal.'

In other words, In MacKinnon's eyes even consensual sex is rape and a woman should be free to accuse a Man of rape even though she fucked the Man with total consent on both sides. His Innocence Is 'Irrelevant' In her eyes.

So If a strident and extreme misandrist feminist like her thinks that - in her own words - 'consent in rape cases should be Irrelevant' - and that 'even if a woman Is shown to have given consent to sex it's still rape' then what can you do?

If all consensual sex 'Is' rape, then all sex Is rape.

Which means that whether or not the woman consented is irrelevant.

So If all sex Is rape then all sex Is a crime.

Or (to take a more normal attitude rather than the feminist nonsense of MacKinnon) no sex Is rape.

Rape not only isn't a crime; it doesn't even exist if MacKinnon took her ideas to their logical conclusIon.

So Instead of trying to criminalise rape MacKinnon should be campaigning for the abolition of the rape laws and the total legalisation of rape!

MacKinnon is full of weird and wonderful ideas even by the standards of feminists. One of her brightest 'gems' is the quote: "Whenever I ask 'have you ever been raped', most women answer, 'I don't know,'" MacKinnon said.

So if a woman doesn't know if she's been raped how can she possibly have the nerve to charge a Man with rape?

If she Is so stupid that she doesn't know the difference between rape and consensual sex how the hell can she possibly go on to cry 'rape?'

I'll deal with another MacKinnon gem when I get to the question about 'capacity to consent.'

But I think I've already done enough to show that the whole Idea of 'rape' being a crime Is Illogical nonsense.

Even so I'll carry on destroying the arguments for the feminist point of view.

What exactly Is rape? Rape Is either coercive sex - In other words, sex that the woman didn't want and made It clear that she didn't want but the Man coerced her in some way (we'll discuss coercion in a minute) - or It's violent sex - sex where not only did the woman not want to be fucked but the Man used violence against her to subdue her and end her resistance.

Now I can't see how a situation where a woman 'doesn't know' If she was raped or not could possibly be considered violent or even coercive?

Am I missing something or are the women who say 'they don't know' If you ask 'were you raped' just thick as two planks?

And coercion Is such a wide term (especially in the way It's deliberately misused by feminists) It's almost meaningless.

MacKinnon for Instance thinks that 'women are unequal to Men economically, socially, culturally, politically, and in religion' and therefore that all sexual relations between them, however consensual, are Inherently coercive.

She goes on to add that 'consent' In the fantasy vision of society she has 'means acquiescence. It means passivity. You can be semi-knocked out. You can be dead in some jurisdictions.' When the Interviewer challenged her about her comment on death being 'consensual' MacKinnon responded 'sex with a dead body Is necrophilia but It Isn't regarded as rape.'

So in her eyes It's Impossible for a woman - dead, comatose or alive - to 'consent' to sex.

Well, if she really believes that then she must logically support abolishing rape as If a woman can't consent then how can a Man fuck her without her consent?

Talk about contradictory messages!

Now let's get on down and dirty with the Idea about 'capacity to consent.'

If a woman Is - as the feminists are always trying to claim - equal to a Man in every way (even though Men are stronger, cleverer, faster and more capable) then she has an equal 'capacity to consent.'

So If MacKinnon and her mob seriously claim that because of 'patriarchy' she doesn't have the 'capacity to consent' then how can a Man ever be arrested for rape? If the woman couldn't consent, how can the Man be charged for having sex with her without her consent if she's not capable of giving consent? And if she can't give consent, how can she withhold it?

Anyway, the logical conclusIon of MacKinnon's argument Is that a woman Isn't capable of making decisions for herself - on sex or anything else - so basically in her eyes women are not just Incapable of taking any responsibility for their actions but not even really capable of thinking for themselves.

It always amazes me how much contempt feminists have for women. They look on us as If we're children or even some sort of Mentally retarded and completely helpless bunch of wallies who can't do anything.

Another MacKinnon gem shows how deep her contempt for women goes. She says: 'Man fucks woman; subject verb object.'

So in her eyes the woman who gets fucked Is just an object!

And she has the nerve to complain about misogyny!

Remember her words 'Man fucks woman; subject verb object. Individual consent Is beside the point.'

So the only logical conclusIon on MacKinnon's 'principles' Is that rape can't even exist because a woman 'can't give her consent.'

Women have no 'capacity for consent.'

If that's true, then what does It mean?

Surely It means that women are on the same level as objects, pets or at best children?

So in the feminist universe women never grow up!

They can't think for themselves, take decisions on their own or give 'consent' to anything.

Are all feminists stuck in a Victorian time warp or what?

It's pretty obvious that whichever way you look at It a Man can't be guilty of raping a woman!

The unimportance of a woman's consent

I dealt with the question of consent in an earlier post but this time I want to go into It in a bit more detail and from several different angles.

There are several different ways in which consent can be Interpreted but the main ones are active consent, where one or more parties deliberately pursue a course of action; tacit consent, where their failure to act Implies consent; negative consent, where people complain but go along with It in spite of their objections; and Implicit consent, where by doing or not doing something they are Implying consent to an act.

As well as these areas, where consent Is required to some extent, there's also the question of the Many situations where consent Is not only not needed but Is an Irrelevant factor. How can a child consent or refuse to consent to anything meaningful?

Of course that doesn't mean that kids don't need protecting from predatory adults like paedophiles; that they don't need to be tended and not neglected or abused; that they don't have certain basic human rights that need to be respected.

What It does mean Is that they can't give an active, Informed consent to pretty well anything and adults, especially family members, have to decide for them.

In the same way, criminals can't be allowed to "consent" to their punishment any more than lunatics can "consent" to their medical treatment.

Nor can animals "consent" to being owned or object to their owners' treatment of them.

I'm going to try and show how and why I think that females fall into the same category of a person whose consent Is not necessary and Is an Irrelevant factor.

To begin with, it's arguable whether us girls are even human beings at all. Men are; it's not so clear with girls. If we're not human, then of course human rights don't and can't apply to us.

I'm not totally sure If we are human or not. From a purely personal point of view I hope we are but I'm not sure.

What Is certain Is that we're genetically Inferior to Men. Women are closer to the apes than Men are. The male Is a higher, more evolved species than the female.

So, at the very least, us girls are less human than Men.

That means that we're less capable of giving our "consent" to anything than Men are and that our "consent" or non-consent Is at least less Important than a Man's consent, If not an entirely Irrelevant Issue.

Secondly, as well as being genetically Inferior to Men, we're also less Intelligent than they are. Our brains are smaller than Men's; they process Information differently; and we have far less ability to reason, think abstractly and deal with shapes and numbers.

The bottom line Is we're more stupid than Men.

Again, our Innate stupidity makes the question of our "consent" less Important and a factor that can, quite reasonably, be Ignored completely If necessary.

Another aspect of the way our smaller brains work Is that we're more emotional than Men and so we find It harder to think rationally and tend just to follow our whims and feelings.

Another way we fall down in comparison with Men Is how we react in a crisis. Women tend to freeze and panic while Men think and act to get out of a dangerous situation.

All these facts make the question of a woman's "consent" far less Important than a Man's consent. He consents with open eyes, in full knowledge of the facts and more or less understanding the consequences of his actions. Women tend to drift on a sea of uninformed emotion and Indecisiveness.

So let's recap briefly:

1 Women may not even be human at all

2 Even If they are, science tells us they're a lower form of humanity than Men are

3 Women are less capable of giving consent because of their closer relationship to animals

4 Women are more stupid than Men and therefore less capable of giving consent

5 Women are less rational than Men and therefore less capable of giving consent

6 Women are more emotional than Men and therefore less capable of giving consent

7 Women freeze in a crisis which makes them less capable of giving consent

When you put all these factors together, It's difficult not to feel that women don't even know what they're doing half the time, why they're doing It and how they really think/feel about It.

The bottom line is, a woman's "consent" is just not relevant. It's nice If she does consent but her "consent" just Isn't necessary or even Important and can quite reasonably be Ignored.

As a logo I saw on the web said, "Our Will Does Not Matter."

Reforming the rape laws

It's obvious that the existing laws are totally biased towards feminist nonsense. The whole idea that so-called "husband rape," "date rape" and "acquaintance rape" can be regarded as "crimes" is just plain stupid as well as obviously unjust. Equally it's ridiculous to assume that a man could possibly be "guilty" of "raping" a prostitute.

The mere fact that she is a whore means she's offering her body for sex and so it's logically impossible to rape a whore!

It's also obvious that police officers, prison guards, the military and other people in positions of authority can't be guilty of "rape" if they have sex with a girl, even "against her will." If the girl's been arrested, then she's the property of the authorities unless she can prove her innocence. As property, she has no "right" to refuse sex to a gentleman and so it can't be rape!

Even with "stranger rape," which IMO is the only type of "rape" that should remain a criminal offence, the way it's treated ought to be completely different. Instead of being looked on as a crime of violence or forced sex, it should be reclassified as a crime against property similar to theft. Essentially, "stranger rape" involves using another man's property without his consent, and only he - and not the girl - is an injured party as a result. A simple monetary payment to the girl's legal owner is the appropriate way of dealing with that particular offence. No "harm" at all was done to the girl, only her owner.

At the moment, the uncorroborated word of a woman can destroy a man's life. She doesn't have to produce any evidence and she's automatically offered anonymity while he is named and shamed across the media.

That's just not fair. In an accusation of rape, anonymity should be offered only to the accused, never to the accuser. The man will keep his anonymity and only the woman will be named and shamed.

And even in the case of "stranger rape," the courts ought to begin from a presumption of the man's innocence and not, as they do right now, of his guilt. The girl should not only be made to explain to the court exactly why she refused to let the gentleman have sex with her but should also be made to answer detailed and explicit questions about her sexual history and about how she was dressed and behaved at the time of the alleged rape.

The court will also assume, unless she can prove otherwise, that she consented to have sex with the "rapist" and was a willing, active and enthusiastic participant in consensual sexual activity. The language she used, the way she was dressed and her general behaviour will all be considered relevant factors in any "stranger rape" case as well as her previous sexual history. And, of course, if the girl orgasmed while being "raped," that's enough in itself to prove that she did consent to have sex with the gentleman. In law, an orgasm is proof of the girl's consent to having sex with the man and therefore it can't have been rape!

In terms of the standard of evidence needed to get a conviction for rape, the whole rules of law, evidence and court procedure need to be radically changed - not just in rape cases but perhaps especially in them. If it's just the girl's word against his then the court will begin from the automatic assumption that she is deliberately lying so, she'll have to do better than that if she wants to take the gentlemen to trial. Actually, if the only 'evidence' is her word against the man's then the police will refuse even to enter a charge. Instead the girl will find herself being charged with a new offence that I'll write about shortly.

It's important to remember that evidence that sexual activity took place won't be regarded in law as "evidence" of "rape." To get a conviction in a rape case, the girl has to prove several things: that the man was a complete stranger to her; that he demanded sex with her and she refused; that the way she acted, dressed, or talked didn't give him any reason to think that she was up for it; that she not only didn't encourage him to have sex with her, but made it quite clear that she didn't want him to fuck her; that she gave him a valid reason for not wanting to be fucked (I'll write about what the valid reasons are in a minute); that she isn't a prostitute; and that she didn't orgasm when she was being fucked.

Even if the girl can prove all those things, the court will still tend to believe that the gentleman is telling the truth rather than her unless she either produces some sort of videotaped evidence or else sworn statements by male witnesses in support of her story. Witness statements by females won't be considered admissible evidence. Only the testimony of male witnesses will be allowed by the court. And there must be at least ten male witnesses to confirm the truth of the girl's story.

Video or CCTV evidence will be closely examined to see if it has been tampered with. DNA evidence or other "physical proof" of sexual activity will not be allowed into evidence since that will only show that the girl was fucked, not that she was raped and is therefore irrelevant as evidence.

Three new offences should also be created in this area of law, the first and most obvious being "false accusation." Any girl who accuses a gentleman of "rape" will automatically be assumed to be lying unless she can prove that she is not. The penalty for such a crime must be severe enough to deter future offenders.

A new offence of "incitement to rape" should be created so that a girl who dresses provocatively, talks dirty, flirts or otherwise give the impression that she is willing to consent to sex and yet refuses will be found guilty of that crime. Again, harsh penalties need to be imposed on girls who are found guilty of incitement to rape.

Another new offence of "refusal of sexual rights" should also be created so that girls who refuse to allow their husbands, partners, boyfriends or friends to fuck them will be found guilty of that crime. Again, they have to be punished for behaviour like that.

When processing girls who complain about "stranger rape" the police should automatically arrest the girl on suspicion of making a false accusation, hold her in custody incommunicado and give her a thorough and vigorous interrogation for a week until she either changes her story or else the police decide there is enough evidence to think that stranger rape might have been committed. If they do decide to proceed then at that point the girl will be released and the gentleman brought in for questioning. Unlike the girl, he is allowed to have a lawyer present and may only be questioned for up to an hour before being released. If they believe he might be guilty they will contact the girl's legal owner or guardian and inform him of the fact. Nine times out of ten the two gentlemen will agree on an out of court settlement where the gentleman who "raped" the other's property will pay him monetary compensation for theft or damage. If the girl's owner accepts this settlement, that's an end of the matter; unless the police feel that the girl was guilty of incitement to rape in which case she will be punished with the full force of the law. Obviously only he has been injured by the other gentleman's actions and no harm at all has been done to the girl!

Only if the girl's owner decides that he wants to pursue the "rapist" can a prosecution take place. If his case is brought to trial, then his identity must be strictly protected at all times. By contrast, the girl's name, address, phone number, e-mail address, photograph, place of employment (if any) and all other personal details will be made freely available to the press and media and publicized. Even if he is found guilty by the court the maximum penalty under the law will be a fine and an order to pay monetary compensation to the girl's owner or legal guardian.

All these reforms in the law would virtually eradicate the crime of rape and would certainly make false accusations almost disappear. That must be better for justice!

Gender roles - part one

I think it's very important that we try to base our ideas on the world as it is and work for change on the basis of what's real and how best to make a practical difference in the real world.

Too many people talking about gender issues start off from an entrenched ideology with preconceptions that prevents them seeing things clearly.

Sometimes even when you give them facts that disprove their claims they refuse to believe a fact because it conflicts with their prejudices \- amazing!

Men and women are both in crisis in the West and any kind of refusal to face up to the facts that are oppressing both genders helps nobody.

Now I admit to having some preconceptions of my own. I used to be a feminist but over the last ten years I've come to consider myself broadly anti-feminist.

But anti-feminism is as hard to define as feminism.

Do I believe in equal treatment for both genders? No, not really. I believe in treating both genders according to their proper role in life.

Do I believe in equal opportunity for both men and women? No, I believe both genders should be able to fulfil their proper roles in life.

Do I believe women should be able to vote, serve on juries, stand for public office and so on?

No, I don't.

Do I believe women should be free to choose to marry or not and if they choose to marry, to select the partner themselves? No, I don't (I've already written about marriage, arranged marriages and polygamy and approved of reforms in marriage, legalizing polygamy and arranged marriages).

Do I believe in same-sex marriage? I'm not keen on it but I do believe men should be able to marry other men if that's their preference. I don't believe women should be able to do that. .

Do I believe women (and men) should be able to engage in consensual sexual activity with other consenting adults? Yes, I do. (But we need to ask ourselves exactly what we mean by consent and how far it applies in heterosexual relationships.)

Now I'll begin (before expressing my own thoughts) with a couple of quotes from two feminist writers who clearly recognise some of the problems that the rise of feminism has created for both genders.

'The creation of a new woman of necessity demands the creation of a new man.'

(Sheila Rowbotham, Women's Liberation and the New Politics, 1972)

A comment many years later by another feminist is more explicit about the failure of either the new woman or new man to materialise:

'Non-working men are feckless and trouble; non-working women are mothers.'

(Suzanne Franks, Having None of It, 1999)

Men not only still see themselves but are largely seen by women and society in general as being primarily defined by their relation to work. It isn't just men that see themselves that way; most women looking for a heterosexual partnership will on the whole still expect the man to be at least the primary breadwinner.

Both sexes have faced an identity crisis since at least the 1960s though I suspect its roots go back to the Second World War when military necessity meant that women had to work in non-traditional occupations. They got a taste for money, independence and sexual adventure that never really went away after that.

Two other developments in the fifties and sixties also had a huge impact. The first was the ready availability of birth control and the second the slow legalisation of abortion. Both meant that sex could be had for its own sake and without the risk of unwanted pregnancies.

The separation of sex and pregnancy led to a completely new attitude towards sexual relations. Both men and women felt able to engage in casual sex rather than viewing it in terms of marriage or at least emotional commitment.

On the whole women's roles had been seen mainly as wives and mothers. Although a minority of women chose to remain single and work they were despised or at least pitied as 'spinsters' who would end their days as 'old maids.'

The sixties also saw the beginning of the slow turndown in the world economy and the gradual shift towards a service, retail and financial based economy rather than a largely manufacturing driven one.

The combination of greater sexual freedom for both genders and the changing demands of the labour market affected both men and women dramatically. More women entered the work place and many traditionally male occupations declined.

By the 1960s advertisers worked out that women had significant purchasing power in their own right and began to target the female market. This took several different forms - an idealised romantic fantasy of an essentially domestic setting; fashion; the beginnings of a gossip/celebrity culture; and the overt use of sexuality - male and female - to promote products.

In spite of the hysterical assertions of feminists, men were every bit as much treated as sex objects in the 'sex sells' style of advertising. With the growing liberalisation of sexual attitudes you also saw the beginnings of 'gay chic' and 'lesbian chic' as the power of the 'pink pound/dollar' dawned on the advertisers.

Magazines like Cosmopolitan began to outstrip traditional women's magazines in popularity. They talked with varying degrees of openness about infidelity, lesbianism, women's changing role and above all celebrating woman as sexual being. The quest for the multiple orgasm became the defining feature of the 'new woman' in the eyes of the staff and readers of Cosmo.

The phrase 'new woman' was certainly vague but it seemed to involve, particularly in women's magazines, an obsession with female sexual gratification, the objectification of men and a narcissistic emphasis on satisfying every whim a woman might have. The world portrayed by Cosmo and its siblings was (and is) a fantasy universe where women are perpetual children and the world a glorified sweetshop (candy shop for my US readers) for them to consume and use with no sense of personal responsibility and even less regard for society as a whole.

As women became increasingly well-off, financially more independent, more self- confident, as sexually rapacious as any Don Juan, as immature as Peter Pan and as self-centred as any prima donna or film star 'having it all' became the new buzz word.

For most of the women who swallowed that hype 'having it all' meant lots of money, conspicuous consumption, looking (or at least trying to look) like a model, being strong and powerful but, above all, selfish. Women who could afford it began hiring 'child care' so that they could have children but not the responsibility of bringing them up. At one time this sort of remote control 'parenting' was only practised by the super-rich but it soon became widespread even among relatively low-income women.

The Cosmo woman morphed into one of three directions. One was the Bridget Jones type of thirty-something woman with a career who also looked on motherhood as an objective (almost a trophy or career strategy) and was obsessed with weight, looks, body image and 'fanciability.' (The 'does my bum look big in this' type of mindset)

Another Cosmo offshoot was the Nicola Horlick model of career woman holding down high-powered jobs and having babies but leaving the childcare to nannies

The third Cosmo clone was the 'ladette.' Ladettes were sexually promiscuous, heavy drinkers, often heavy drug users, anti-social, violent and frequently criminal.

Just as Cosmo spawned a generation of narcissistic, greedy and selfish women, so Viz and later Loaded spawned the 'lad' culture. Lads, like ladettes, were working- class, almost invariably white, feckless, almost incapable of doing anything, obsessed with sex, drink, drugs and football (soccer for the US audience). They simultaneously despised women and relied on them to run their lives (the ladettes attitude to men was similar),

Some people, especially masculists - the mirror image of feminism and its faults - believe that laddism was a reaction against feminism. I don't agree. IMO the real roots of laddism are the economic decline of the 1970s and 1980s where a whole generation of young working class men found that jobs were hard to come by, low-paid and insecure when they were available and that instead of being able to work in traditional employment spheres they found themselves a despised underclass.

Drink, drugs, crime, casual violence and a cynical attitude to sex - what the psychologist Ian Suttie called as long ago as the 1930s 'a taboo on tenderness' - led to a self-centred, callous and utterly brutal approach to life. Lads, unlike their parents, really did come to look on women as objects rather than people. Ladettes looked on men in the same way.

A further source of resentment for the 'lads' was that they discovered it was easier for girls to get jobs than boys. The percentage of families where the woman was the sole or main breadwinner accelerated dramatically.

This caused resentment among both genders. Men, unable to fulfil what had always been seen as their primary role of provider for the family, became depressed, alcoholic, drug users, criminals and frequently committed suicide.

Domestic violence shot up as resentful men took out their frustrations on wives and girlfriends.

Women reacted by despising their men, having affairs with men seen as better 'catches,' and also indulging in domestic violence against their male partners.

Divorce, co-habitation rather than marriage and single-parent families escalated to epidemic proportions.

I don't blame these social trends on feminism. I blame them on the economic system that allowed a whole generation to have its life and future wasted. I also blame it on the welfare state which was designed as a safety net for people who were ill or fell on hard times and was never intended to be a way of life.

But that's exactly what happened. The free and extensive provision of council housing; the mass of benefits ranging from family allowance, lone-parent benefit, housing benefit, income support and so on led to a situation where people consciously chose to live on benefits and not work. Men and women deliberately had large families so they could receive huge payments in benefits (on the TV recently there was a programme about a man who had 22 children by 10 different women getting half a million in benefits just for dipping his wick!

So the combination of greedy capitalist employers and mad socialist governments is largely to blame for laddism, ladettism, the high rates of alcoholism and drug addiction and their associated criminal behaviour.

I don't blame feminism for these things but I do blame feminists for their response to them. I'll deal with my main beefs in the next few articles.

Gender roles - part two

In the first article I gave a brief background and history to feminism and its impact on society in the West. This article will basically examine the principles of feminism and relate them to society and life.

At the bottom line feminism is supposed to be based on either the principle of equality or the principle of equity (fairness). If it doesn't follow either principle it can't honestly claim to be interested in liberation - women's or other - and turns into a reverse sexism that Betty Friedan aptly called 'female chauvinism.'

So what does an egalitarian feminism mean? I'll list a few obvious things but I'm sure people can think of loads of others.

1 Equality of opportunity

2 Equal pay

3 Equality under the law

4 Equal human rights

Now on the face of it all these principles sound reasonable but as so often the devil is in the detail.

IMO both men's right advocates (MRAs) and feminists, especially radical feminists, try to misapply these principles into something that ends up becoming the direct opposite.

In spite of the strident and often vicious tone of both the MRAs and the rad fems (too often the men are misogynist and the women misandrist) both make some valid points. In particular both, in different contexts and for different reasons, make sensible criticisms of the 'one size fits all' mentality.

For instance, the insistence on sheer quantity or volume isn't necessarily the right approach in many respects. (Feminists who stress equity rather than equality freely acknowledge this).

A classic case is the sad story of the women-only TV company that hired an all- female staff which turned out to be an absolute disaster.

That was not because the staff were female but because they were the wrong women. They had been hired on ideological grounds and turned out to be incompetent, disloyal, disruptive and, through their behaviour, ended up bringing down the company.

So just playing a numbers game doesn't guarantee success and apart from the fact that it might backfire it's also surely an inherently unjust way to proceed. It's choosing people on the basis of their gender rather than on merit which is how things used to work in South Africa under apartheid even though the unjust basis of selection there was race and skin colour rather than gender.

On the other hand MRAs make a lot of silly fuss about women-only facilities. Women, for obvious reasons, often feel safer and more relaxed among their own gender and if men have their own little women-free zones why shouldn't women have men-free ones?

But these issues tend to arise in fairly specific areas like car park spaces, swimming pools or club situations and in every one of those settings I can't see any major reason to object to same-sex provision.

Let's take a close look at equal opportunity now. It seems to mean (in the case of feminists) an equal chance to be politicians, judges, financiers, scientists and similarly high-profile and high-paid jobs. There doesn't seem to be the same demand from feminists for women to rush off and become miners, construction workers, firefighters and sewer workers. Where is the feminist clamour for women to enter those occupations? Sorry, can't hear you, sisters!

Let's examine the claims that women should be better represented in the fields where feminists want them to be more visible. I'll begin with politics.

In a democracy politicians are elected so women are free to vote and to stand for election. There are actually quite a few women politicians but the point is that as a slight majority of the electorate is female there are only two possible reasons why democracies are not flooded with a majority of female politicians.

One is that not enough of them run for public office. The hours are unsociable, legislation is often boring and the job is quite stressful. Many women just don't want the hassle, especially women with children.

Another is that not enough women vote for female candidates when they're available. It's often women who are reluctant to vote for other women so again that's democracy in action.

The other point is that when they vote for a candidate women, like men, tend to vote for the one whose views are closest to their own irrespective of their gender.

So whichever way you look at it the answer is basically down to women voters, for whatever reason, not voting for female candidates.

So given the electoral demographics in democracies the only logical answer to the question, 'why aren't there more women in politics?' is very simple.

It's because women don't vote for them, or at least not in large enough numbers!

So the relatively smaller representation of females in politics is not because of some sinister patriarchal conspiracy to do women down.

It's because women aren't voting for them!

Now let's look at judges. I don't know enough about the US system of judicial appointments and I'd be happy to be enlightened on that subject. But I do know about my own country, Britain, so I'll talk about the judicial system there.

In Britain a judge has to serve a long and expensive apprenticeship through law school, becoming a junior barrister, senior barrister and Queen's Counsel before he or she can be appointed to a court. The result is that judges in Britain overwhelmingly come from wealthy families. That's changed very slightly over the last thirty or forty years but it's still basically the case.

There are female judges in Britain but the huge cost of their legal apprenticeship is the main deterrent to them entering the profession. There doesn't seem to be any significant degree of gender prejudice in terms of judicial appointments so the main factor is clearly money.

Now for the nub of it; the claim (made more often and more stridently by US feminists but also heard in Britain too) that there's a relative lack of representation of women in senior positions in the financial world.

I'm not particularly clued up on the US situation but I'll talk about how it is in Britain because I do know about that. The facts are quite striking and maybe even a bit disconcerting to the 'employ by numbers' brigade.

Over the last ten years there's been a dramatic decline in the numbers of women in Britain holding senior positions in finance. In all but a tiny handful of cases the reason is very simple.

The reason for the decline is because women have chosen to walk away from these high-powered, high-earning, high-pressure jobs. They gave two main reasons for their decision.

One was that they couldn't take the pressure and felt burnt out by it. That was the reason most often given by single women.

The other was that they couldn't go on juggling their job and a family. That was the most common reason given by women with children.

So once again it wasn't the result of patriarchy but the fact that the women themselves chose to walk away because they valued their sanity and home life more than greed or status or power.

I admire them for doing that and yet again it's not patriarchy making them walk out; it's the free choice of the woman to do so.

And in fact over the last five years in particular the financial sector has been positively trying to recruit more women for senior positions and they've been stunned at the lack of females who've even bothered to apply. Increasingly women in senior financial positions in Britain are coming from abroad because hardly any British women seem to want to put themselves up for employment in that sector.

Once more, not patriarchy; the woman's choice!

Now let's look at science and technology. Again I'm going to talk about Britain because that's my country and I know how things work in it.

From the 1960s onwards successive governments of all political persuasions have poured in huge sums of money and engaged in a lot of education, propaganda and advertising to encourage girls to take up these options as careers. There has been some improvement in the numbers but basically most girls don't want a career in science or technology. It's hard and they prefer to choose easier career options.

So once again the small numbers of women in science and technology is not down to patriarchy. For what it's worth employers in Britain are currently busting a gut trying to recruit more women.

Once more it's not patriarchy keeping them out - it's the women themselves choosing not to go down that path!

So to cut a long story short equality of opportunity in politics, the law, finance, science and technology already exists and the only thing stopping women filling more of those roles is not their gender, not some mythical patriarchal monster.

It's the women themselves!

Because the question of equality under the law is such a huge issue covering so many different legal aspects from criminal, civil, family and commercial law I'll deal with it in my next article because this one is already far too long.

Waffly old me!

Equality under the law

Equality under the law is a real minefield. It's one area of the US system I've taken a lot of interest in though of course I'm more familiar with the British legal system.

Basically in both countries anyone who looks at the law open-mindedly sees at once that in some ways it's unfair to women and in others it's unfair to men.

The situation in the US is slightly more complicated because different states have different laws. This leads at times not just to absurdities but even to positive injustice.

For instance it's legal in Louisiana for couples to have sex at 17 years old while in California the legal age is 18. This means that a Louisiana boy of 18 having consensual sex with a Californian woman of 17 can be arrested, placed on the sex offenders register and even sent to prison for 'statutory rape.'

There's no justice in that!

I'll now turn to the various unfairnesses in the law in terms of how they affect both genders. I'll begin with crime and punishment and also look at the possible reasons for what's a clear imbalance between the genders in that area of law.

Let's start with murder. Women are more likely than men to be acquitted, more likely than men to be granted extenuating circumstances, more likely than men to be paroled early, less likely than men to be sentenced to death, less likely than men to be sentenced to LWOP and far less likely than men to be executed if they are sentenced to death.

Now various theories have been put forward for the unequal nature of verdicts and unbalanced sentencing. One popular feminist 'explanation' is that 'the patriarchy' is acting 'chivalrously' towards women. That's a weird and self-contradictory idea in itself.

On the one hand the 'patriarchy' is supposed to be 'oppressing' women and yet, given the chance to oppress them legally, they do the exact opposite and show women special favours and oppress men instead!

A strange way for a 'patriarchy' whose sole purpose is supposed to be to 'oppress' women to behave!

Chivalry as a 'reason' for this just doesn't cut it!

But before I go on to say what I think the real reason is I'll show some other obvious flaws with the idea that an 'oppressive patriarchy' is behaving 'chivalrously' towards female criminals.

If the feminist theory was true then female judges and female juries ought to be equally as severe on their own sex as they are on men and as male judges or jurors are. Trouble is that it just is not the case. There seems no convincing evidence that women are found guilty more often by their own sex or that female judges impose the same punishments on female felons. In fact, the opposite seems to be true; that women jurors are more likely to acquit a woman and female judges are more likely to impose a lesser sentence on female offenders.

So it's obviously not the fault of the 'patriarchy' that women are treated more favourably than men in criminal cases.

So why are they? There's only one logical answer.

Yes, you've guessed it; it's the fault of feminism!

Not only does this give a full and logical explanation of all the facts but it's also supported by the way that feminists spout mumbo-jumbo rubbish claiming that women who kill only do so 'because' of 'patriarchal oppression.'

Even in Britain where we don't have a death penalty women are more likely than men to be acquitted, more likely to have murder charges reduced to manslaughter, more likely to receive lesser sentences than men and even in some cases a non-custodial sentence.

Again, it makes no difference if it's male or female jurors or judges. The pattern is consistent and the only logical explanation for it is - feminism.

On crimes other than murder in Britain the pattern is still the same. Women are more likely than men to be acquitted, more likely to receive lesser sentences and more likely to be given some sort of non-custodial punishment than men.

A group of women activists in Britain have now seriously claimed that all women prisoners should be released, women's prisons closed and that no woman should ever be sent to prison.

That good old feminist special pleading again!

In fact, I can't ever remember hearing or reading about feminists demanding that women should be punished equally with a man.

All you get from them is excuses and demands for women to get lesser punishment or even none at all!

In the days before feminism corrupted the judicial process, men and women almost always did get the same punishment for the same crime.

So the culprit is clear. Once again, it's not patriarchy - it's feminism and its gender fascism that has destroyed equality under the law and allowed female criminals to get away with it.

Naturalism would take a different approach towards crime and punishment from either the feminist one or the gender equity one. On a naturalistic approach, women, being the weaker and inferior sex, ought to receive harsher and more severe punishment than men for the same offences.

How would this work in practice? Well, I'd restore the death penalty but only women could be executed. I'd restore judicial corporal punishment but again, only women could be caned or whipped. I'd bring back the cane in schools but again, only girls could be caned.

In terms of prison sentences, I think that female offenders should always be sentenced to roughly double what a man would get for the same crime and that hard labour should be a mandatory component of any prison sentence given to a female offender. Female offenders should also only be able to apply for parole after serving a minimum of three-quarters of their allotted sentences while men would be able to apply for parole after serving one-quarter of their sentence.

The parole and sentencing system itself also ought to be reformed when female offenders are involved. A woman criminal will be sentenced to a minimum term which at the end of her sentence will be reviewed by the Parole Board who will be able to extend it if in their opinion she has not satisfied their criteria for releasing her back into the community. A female convict will always be given a minimum sentence, which may be extended at the discretion of the Parole Board panel, while male offenders will always receive a maximum sentence, which may be reduced at the discretion of the Parole Board.

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 - literally or metaphorically - 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 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!

Male empowerment and female disempowerment

These two ideas are obviously polar opposites of one another. In the one case, you're giving one gender a higher status, greater freedom of opportunities and more freedom in general; in the other you're doing the reverse process.

In the West, for the last four centuries or so a gradual process of female empowerment took place, culminating from the 1960s onwards in the various factions of the feminist movement.

At the same time there was a corresponding reduction in power, privileges and so on by the male population,

I'm going to post some more threads on this and related subjects but for now I'm going to talk about how I feel on this issue.

Let's begin by asking the obvious question. Is it a good idea to empower or disempower people simply on the basis of their gender?

On humanist principles, the answer is obviously "no." Most human activities can be done more or less equally well by men or women. Some can only be done by one or the other. A woman is the only one who can carry a baby to term and give it birth; a man is the only one who can penetrate her (and even artificial insemination only works because of the male seed so let's knock that objection on the head right away).

In a way, you could put it in an apparently paradoxical way and say that only a man can create new life and that a woman is simply a vessel for carrying the new life he brings into the world.

That's one example of the many ways in which He is superior to her. It's even more noticeable when you compare things like physical strength, scientific ability, sporting prowess, artistic creativity. Although you do get the odd woman who contributes and, in a very small number of cases, even excels, as a proportion of the total of adding value to Mankind, the amount of credit due to women is around 1%, and certainly no greater than 5%.

Even where you do find a woman who is different from the norm, she invariably turns out to have masculine characteristics and not to possess the normal feminine ones.

The expression "the weaker sex" is very much true of women. Just as a baby is weak and relies on the protection of its parents, so too between the two genders there is also a natural hierarchy. The male, almost invariably, is more capable than the female, has a wider range of skills, a generally higher intelligence and is also physically stronger. He is the one who is exposed regularly to the dangers of war, demanding jobs, and other exceptionally challenging and stressful circumstances.

He has to take decisions on a regular basis and it is instinctive for him to do that. The man is a natural leader just as the woman is a natural follower.

The man does; the woman is. The man thinks; the woman feels. The man acts; the woman reacts. The man teaches; the woman learns. The man commands; the woman obeys. That's the natural balance of nature.

For a long time things stayed pretty much like that and then the changes started to happen. Women started to get more privileges and eventually began demanding greater "rights" which, in reality, would more accurately have been described as either privileges or special treatment. Eventually, often piecemeal, the men gave in and gave away more and more of their power to women. Before long we even had women as leaders of great nations.

None of the various women leaders have been particularly effective at their jobs. Some were simply useless while others, like Indira Gandhi, Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meier, were positively harmful in their effects.

One of the things I like about Islam is its approach to gender relationships. I'm not a Muslim and never will be one and there are lots of things in the Koran that repel me but on the whole they've got the right basic attitude. It's the norm in nature for men to lead and women to serve and follow and their view is more in harmony with the natural world than our artificial, self-serving and decadent way in the West. I'm obviously not talking about the way the mad mullahs of Iran or the Taliban treat women. They confuse subordination with oppression, submission with depersonalisation, and a lot of what they come out with is actually specifically forbidden in the Koran.

Even so, Islam starts from the correct basis, with the man as the head of household and the woman as his subordinate. If you meet a woman who wasn't brought up as a Muslim but has converted to the religion when she married a man who was, she always seems to be much happier and more fulfilled than an ordinary Western woman.

Anyway, I believe firmly that the status of men and women has been too radically altered in the West and needs to be reformed. We need to raise the present position of men and to lower the present dominant role of women.

What steps would I take if I was in power to try and achieve that goal? That's a tough one.

There are so many different areas in which change is needed that it's difficult to know which is the most important. However, I do feel that the key to power and control in our capitalist society is economic, and so I'd want to see economic reforms put in place as the first step towards restoring the natural balance.

We need to begin by stripping females of their economic power and their personal wealth. If we do that then everything else will begin to fall into place. So what should be the first action to take? How do we begin stripping away the wealth and economic power women currently have?

The most fundamental first step would be to deprive them of the right to own property. At the moment they can (and do) own homes in their own right and to remove that 'right' from them would deal a huge blow against the feminist world order. So how would we do that? By passing a law, obviously, but how to enforce it?

And how would we deal with the cases of joint ownership, tenancy in common and similar situations? The only answer is to be completely ruthless. We must remain focused upon the objective of the law which is, along with various other economic and social measures, designed to destroy the fundamental source of the problem.

What is the root cause of it? Female independence. So the remedy must be to destroy that and make it completely impossible for a woman to lead an independent life. She must either be totally dependent upon a man or else must pass into the control of the state.

If she owns her home in her sole name, an Executive Order must be issued against her and government bailiffs will take immediate legal possession of it. If she has a mortgage on her home, she will be required to pay off the balance of it immediately. If she is unable to pay the outstanding mortgage – which hardly any women will be able to do - she will have any remaining assets seized, an attachment of earnings order placed against her wages or salary, and she will be subject to a community service order requiring her to work at some designated project for a minimum of eight hours a week up to a maximum of twenty, depending on the size of her outstanding debt and the seriousness with which her situation is viewed by the government.

If she lives in "social housing" she will simply be evicted without notice and either required to find alternative rented accommodation in the private market or to go into one of the new government "hostels," as described in my Diary of a Hostel Girl stories.

The act of confiscation alone will fetch in millions as the government puts the women's' homes on the market and only men will be able to purchase them, if necessary (as it might be in more deprived areas) at knock-down prices. It will be enshrined in the law of the land that from now on, only men may own property. The best a single woman can hope for is to have a rented room in which to live.

Having disempowered women of their homes and empowered men by selling them to them at cheap prices, the next stage is to gain control of their financial affairs. To begin with it will no longer be legally possible for women to enter into any kind of contract and the only way in which her name can be placed on the contract is as a junior counter-signer to a male. Any woman who wants to enter into a contract must have a male guarantor whose name will be on the document as the "signatory" and hers will only be recorded as the "counter-signatory." In addition, any existing contracts must be re-negotiated with immediate effect, using the same principles, of a male signatory and a female counter-signatory.

Since every loan or overdraft is a contract between the borrower and the lender, the result will be that banks and finance companies will immediately call in the loans unless the woman is able to provide a male signatory to guarantee the loan.

Inevitably, if a man is willing to sign a loan on her behalf, he will want something in return. Officially he should only ask for a "service fee," but unofficially many men will probably demand sexual favours. The woman is likely to be so desperate to secure her loan or overdraft that very few of them will refused, whether it is money or sex that is being asked of her. The odds are that it will probably be both, especially if the woman is attractive.

The psychological and practical effects on single women will be enormous. Unable to own their own homes, unable to secure loans or credit without a man signing on their behalf and them simply countersigning; often forced to have sex or at least pay a "service fee" in order to keep their "independent" lifestyle going, women will begin to wonder if it's worth it.

Suddenly being a wife will appear a far more attractive option than being a single woman, responsible for her own affairs and yet having to depend on a man even to do that. I think it would force many women to reconsider their position and begin to look around for a man to marry.

Further encouragement could be given to this process by making it illegal for a woman to have a bank account in her own name. Before she reaches the age of majority, any money she earns from working or any money she receives from her parents ought to be held in trust for her by her father or a "designated male guardian" and that should remain the case until she marries. In the event of her marriage, all that happens is that a legal document is drawn up which transfers any earnings or money held in trust for her into the custody and control of her husband rather than their previous guardian.

Those single women who already have bank accounts will be required to find a "designated male guardian" to hold their funds "in trust" and he will have full custody of and control over her account and finances. Effectively, women will be robbed of their financial independence and economic power at a stroke, and men will be re-empowered by the changes.

Wives will be affected differently, and I will write on the reforms that I believe we need in the present marital situation in my follow-up post. For single women, however, the days of their selfish independence and frivolous ways will be over for good! There won't be any more of their feminist self-indulgence; they'll have to learn to manage life by acting under the control of a man instead of following their childish whims.

There's lots more to say on this subject but this is already too long (you can see why I don't use Twitter!) so I'll write a follow-up for other measures and areas.

Just breaking their financial power and independence and forcing women to have their assets held in trust for them by men and not being able ever to own property or have a bank account or credit in their own right would transform the situation overnight.

Men would be re-empowered and women effectively disempowered simply by these simple but effective measures!

Civil rights and females

There are many existing 'rights' that females enjoy in the West which are actually nothing like 'rights' but are really privileges. One of the most obvious areas where anti-feminists want to see changes in the law is women's suffrage.

In 1918 women under the age of 30 were given the vote and in 1928 women under the age of 21. In the 1960s both men and women could vote from the age of 18. The results of women's suffrage have been disastrous. In the US women received the vote in 1919.

Women of course (and not just feminists either - women in general have been so conditioned by the century of feminism we've had that they take it for granted that they deserve to have the 'rights' that they've now got) would squeal if you said, look, giving women the vote was a bad mistake and we need to change the laws to remove your right to vote.

But we don't let, say, 10-year-olds vote - that's not out of some crazy hatred of youngsters. It's because they're too young to be able to make informed decisions.

In the same way, we don't (yet, anyway) let prisoners or lunatics vote. With lunatics it's pretty obvious that they are incapable of making informed decisions; with prisoners it's part of their punishment to be, temporarily at least, stripped of their civic rights, including the right to vote.

Well, while I wouldn't argue that women are on the same level as lunatics or criminals or very young children, they certainly aren't on the same level as adult males. For one thing, they don't work in the dangerous, physically exhausting jobs that men do. They don't work in combat roles in the military (with a tiny handful of exceptions in the last few years). Women expect men to fight and die for them while contributing nothing to the struggle. Sure, some of them work as nurses or in other non-combatant roles but they're well out of the danger zone.

If women really want equality they have to be exposed to the same dangers - in military and civilian life - as men. So women should be conscripted into the military just like men and so too should they do the dangerous and physically tiring jobs just like men.

Any sign of that happening? No. Men are still drafted but women aren't. All kinds of excuses are made for not having women in the military but frankly hardly any of them hold water.

One excuse is 'chivalry' with opponents of women in the armed forces claiming that in a combat situation, men would instinctively try to protect the women soldiers. Well, anyone in a combat situation will try to protect the other soldiers they are with. Men or women. If you are on the front line it's all about survival, minimizing casualties and trying to rescue your wounded and take them to a place of safety.

Now if, as feminists claim, chivalry is a trick of the patriarchy, how can (if the claim that they would protect women soldiers more than men is true) they square that behaviour with the reality of warfare? A male soldier rescuing a woman rather than a man is not likely to happen in real life. He - and she - would react to the actual situation which is of course to try and save all your company, regardless of their gender. If he rescued a woman soldier when the more appropriate thing would have been to rescue a male one, that would be despicable and no soldier in his (or her) right mind would do it.

Frankly, if they really believed in equality or even equity, which of course they don't, these 'feminists' should positively welcome the idea of girls in the military where they can be killed and wounded along with the men. They should campaign for and demand that women are drafted into the military and made to serve on the front line of war.

So chivalry as an argument against women being conscripted and made to serve in the armed forces just doesn't cut it.

Other arguments against the idea include the superior physical fitness of men compared with women. Yes, that's true - though women have greater endurance than men so you could say that for roles where endurance rather than speed are needed they might even be better suited to some combat situations than men.

And of course a lot of Western countries - including the US - abandoned conscription long ago so they have volunteer armed forces. There's no good reason why women can't join the military and serve in combat roles IMO. Frankly, in some areas - for instance, bomb disposal or similar types of work where physical strength makes no difference - they would probably be as good as men and maybe even better. So much warfare these days is technological rather than brute strength that the argument about women's inferior physical strength isn't anywhere near as applicable as it once was.

Then there's the argument that women in active service would 'hurt morale.' How and why would it do that, exactly? Don't men have 'morale' problems on difficult and dangerous combat missions? Surely, if anything, it would help morale by letting the men enjoy the company of women rather than being stuck with a bunch of blokes.

Then we come to the biggie - the one that's trotted out time and again as the 'reason' why women shouldn't serve in the military - sex and pregnancy. Well, yes, that's always possible. But leaving aside the question of whether it's better to have heterosexual sex between male and female service personnel, the sex would be a comfort to both. As for pregnancy, well, there are very effective contraception methods available.

So we come back to the real objection - tradition. Yes, traditionally soldiering and sailoring has been a male preserve.

Then again, there was a time when we all lived in caves!

So to refuse women entry to the military on the basis of 'tradition' is a completely irrational way of organising the armed forces. It should be a duty that both genders enter into for a period of time and that some who want to do so turn into a career.

The argument against female suffrage most often heard today (especially from American anti-feminists) is that because women aren't subject to the draft and very few of them join the Armed Forces, therefore they shouldn't be able to vote.

That ignores the fact that the US did away with conscription in 1973 and all serving military personnel, male or female, volunteer to join.

It's claimed (and probably true) that if women were subjected to conscription they would find all kinds of ways to dodge the draft. They would insist on exemptions, beginning with pregnant women, nursing mothers, mothers with young children, single mothers and all kinds of other excuses will be found why women should be 'exempted' from military service.

Janet Bloomfield (aka Judgybitch) has suggested a 'birth draft' which would forbid women between the ages of 19 and 26 from using birth control or abortion and inform them that their bodies 'would be deployed for the good of the nation.' In plain English, they would be forced to have sex with multiple men to become pregnant.

I don't have a problem with that idea in principle (it would be the female equivalent of the draft for males) but I still feel that both men and women should be conscripted into the military. If necessary, there could be all-female units to avoid some of the 'objections' to men and women serving alongside one another.

Now as it happens I'm pretty indifferent as to whether women can or can't vote. I don't think being able to vote changes much whether you're a man or woman because somehow the ones in charge always manage to stay at the top of the greasy pole.

On balance I think it would be better if women can't vote because they tend to pressurize politicians into wasting money on 'women's issues' rather than seeing the whole picture. But I think that voting changes so little in politics and society that disenfranchising women, even though it sends out a symbolic message to the feminists, would still leave the fundamental problems of a sick society untouched.

So though I'd welcome the abolition of women's suffrage it won't be a game- changer. Lots of other, far more fundamental and necessary reforms, would radically transform our society and they need to be concentrated on.

Towards a reformed society

I'll briefly summarise the changes I think are necessary to create a blueprint for a reformed society. These changes are not in any particular order!

1 Women forbidden to vote or stand for public office

2 Women forbidden to serve on juries or to become lawyers or judges

3 Legalization of all rape except 'stranger rape' which is now classified as theft

4 Punishment of all false accusations of rape

5 Creation of new offences of incitement to rape, refusal of conjugal rights, refusal of dating rights

6 Domestic violence laws reformed so domestic discipline is now legal

7 Abolition of 'sexual harassment' laws

8 Full legalization of all pornography

9 Divorce and legal separation now forbidden to women

10 Sole custody of children from a divorce always vested in the ex-husband and never the wife

11 All money, property and assets from a marriage are solely vested in the ex- husband in the event of a divorce and never the wife; the husband gets 100% of the marital assets

12 Alimony and maintenance payments in the event of a divorce are always awarded against the wife and never the husband

13 Access to children from the marriage by the ex-wife is at the discretion of the husband who has the sole right to determine when, where, how often or even if the ex-wife may have access to his children

14 Reform the criminal law to reflect the greater severity of punishment that female offenders should be subjected to, incorporating the following reforms: all female convicts must receive double the sentence of male offenders; judicial corporal punishment to be restored but its use restricted to female offenders; capital punishment to be restored but its use restricted to female offenders; all female convicts sentenced to prison terms must serve hard labour as an integral part of their sentence. Male offenders may not be sentenced to capital punishment, hard labour or corporal punishment.

15 Reform women's education so that girls leave school at 16 and go out to work and are not allowed to pursue further education except in purely vocational courses

16 Reintroduce corporal punishment to schools but restrict its use to girls

17 Introduce direction of labour for girls and women so that they can no longer cherry-pick the cushy jobs but are forced to work as coalminers, in heavy construction, garbage disposal, down the sewers and in similarly difficult, tiring and dangerous jobs just as the men have had to do for years

18 Raise the pension age for women to 75; lower it for men to 55

19 Reform the tax system so that women pay a higher rate of tax than men, with men having a maximum tax rate of 10% and women a maximum rate of 90% of their income. The system should also be reformed so that it is a progressive rate for men, starting at 1% and rising to the top rate of 10% with men paying more tax the more they earn. In the case of women, the tax system should be regressive, starting at 20% and rising to the top rate of 90% with the lower the woman's income the higher the rate of tax she pays.

20 Reform the pension system so that male pensions are always on a non- contributory basis while female pensions are always on a contributory basis

21 Introduce a maximum working week for men and a minimum working week for women

22 Reform the system of family allowances so that men are paid for each child they have and that money remains theirs even in the event of divorce. Pay child tax benefits and subsidies to fathers rather than mothers. The father would receive five thousand pounds for the first child, ten thousand for the second, twenty thousand for the third and fifty thousand for the fourth. And so on incrementally. That money would be paid to the fathers and to them alone. The mother would not be able to obtain access to or control over that money no matter what the

circumstances are. Only in the event of widowhood would a mother be able to receive these paternity payments. In the same way, following pregnancy and birth, only the father should be entitled to paternity leave and the mother will not be allowed maternity leave.

22 Reform the laws on abortion so that only the father of the unborn child gets to decide if his baby is carried to term by the mother. Any attempt by the mother to abort her child will lead to her being put on trial for first-degree murder.

23 Reform the laws on contraception so that only the husband or boyfriend of the girl gets to decide if he will fuck her with or without birth control. Any attempt by the girl to use birth control without his permission will be treated as a criminal offence.

Chivalry and gender etiquette

How should we rewrite gender etiquette in the light of naturalist ethics? Clearly, the old ideas of chivalry - which feminists, for different reasons, reject - are out of place in a naturalistic society, based as they are on the idea of women as helpless bimbos needing male protection. Leaving aside the question of whether women really are helpless bimbos, which so obviously depends on the individual that it's really a non-issue, let's deal with the question of chivalry based on the idea that men should protect women.

In the first place, there's the argument from 'manners.' What exactly does that mean? If it's polite for a man to hold open a door for a woman, it's equally polite for a woman to hold open a door for a man. If it's polite for a man to offer his seat to a woman, it's equally polite for a woman to offer her seat to a man. If it's polite for a man to offer to help a woman who's struggling with luggage or heavy shopping, it's equally polite for a woman to offer to help a man who's struggling with luggage or heavy shopping. If it's polite for a man to shelter a girl under his umbrella (even if it means he gets soaked!) it's equally polite for a girl to shelter a man under her umbrella (even if it means she gets soaked!)

So if it's polite for one gender, it's polite for both. If it's not polite for one, it's not polite for either. And from a naturalistic point of view the whole purpose of politeness is anything but obvious. Unless politeness is being used as a way of conning another person into acting in a way that they wouldn't have done otherwise, it doesn't seem to have any useful function.

So perhaps the answer is to bin the whole concept of chivalry and just be concerned with yourself. Don't open the door for anyone; don't give up your seat to anyone; don't offer to help anyone with luggage or heavy shopping; don't shelter anyone under your umbrella. Not even the most misandrist feminist could complain that they were being 'patronised' or 'demeaned' or 'treated as an inferior being.'

So that's one answer. Just adopt a gung-ho selfish approach. Push past the other woman or man and open the door yourself and slam it in his or her face; ignore her or him while you're safely on your seat; ignore anyone, man or woman, struggling with heavy shopping or with luggage; keep your umbrella to yourself.

A few years of this and any lingering vestiges of chivalry would be as dead as the dodo!

Now let's turn to the thorny question of 'dating etiquette.' Let's begin with the most obvious minefield area - the 'first date.' What are the pitfalls in terms of 'dating etiquette' that come about in this situation?

Well, quite a few, actually. Who should pay - the man or the woman? Should they split the bill? Should it depend on who has more money? Should they agree beforehand on who pays for what?

Then there's the question of 'first date meal etiquette.' Should the man (or woman) pull out the chair for their date? Should they (if they arrive separately) offer to take the other's coat? Should they (if they arrive separately) stand up when the other one enters the restaurant?

Then there's the question of 'what next?' Does going out on a date imply a 'sexual contract' in which the girl implicitly consents to the man fucking her? Or does it simply mean that she wants to get to know him better to see if she likes him or not?

In my opinion going out on a date does imply a sexual contract and it gives an implicit consent to the man to fuck her if he wants to. Fucking as a result of a date therefore just can't be and isn't 'rape' and the whole 'crime' of 'date rape' should be stricken from the statutes!

But of course, given that men are the stronger and dominant sex, that females are inferior to them and that naturalistic morality is concerned only with the interests of the stronger, we can see at once that there's another and more logical way of looking at chivalry and gender etiquette!

So let's go back to our list of examples. On a naturalist morality, the woman should always hold open the door for the man but he should never hold it open for her. The woman should always give up her seat for the man but he should never give up his for her. If a woman sees a man struggling with luggage or heavy shopping she should always volunteer to carry it for him but he should never do the same for her. If a woman sees a man getting wet in the rain she should always cover him with her umbrella but he should never do the same for her.

Similarly with 'meal etiquette.' The woman should always pull out the chair for the man but he should never do the same for her. The woman should always stand up when the man enters the restaurant if they arrive separately. And the woman should always pay the bill for both of them.

And, of course, after she's paid the bill and they've left, she's already given her implicit 'consent' for the man to fuck her! What a lovely way to round off a pleasant meal - to be fucked afterwards!

Feminism, cuntism and cuntishness

Over the last sixteen years I've been slowly groping towards an alternative to feminism that retains what's good in the movement (not much, but some aspects of it are) but discards the bad features. Because I am anti-feminist I get used to being told I'm a gender traitor. Equally because I'm not a conventional anti-feminist who wants to go back to a 'fifties housewife' model for women to follow anti-feminist men in particular (and some anti-feminist women) find my attitudes hard to accept. Before I put forward my own gradually evolving philosophy I'll begin with a series of articles analysing some key feminist thinkers. I'm sure that at least some feminists will say 'no woman could possibly write about philosophy or look at these kinds of ideas; they're so intellectual they must be the work of a man!'

Typical of the contempt for women that feminists have. They think we're useless, stupid and without value. To them only men have value and I've come to see over the course of the last sixteen years of my life that it's not just a totally weird and irrational prejudice; feminism is actually the most misogynistic philosophy of life ever developed.

That's why masculist philosophers and psychologists recognise cuntishness as being not only a general female disposition to be stupid, think wrongly and behave badly but as being a specific form of mental illness and one that is almost always associated with psychopathic attitudes and behaviour.

So, what exactly is cuntishness? It's two things really, separate but one deriving from the other.

The first and most primitive meaning of cuntishness is that it consists in simply being born with a cunt.

As the founder of Male Truth His Majesty Femboss put it in his famous 'cuntito' principle: 'because a female has a cunt she is a cunt.'

So simply because we're born female we're all born with a cunt and therefore we are all cunts. The second and more complex definition of cuntishness is that having a cunt leads to girls adopting certain types of attitude and behaviour that are inherently antisocial.

The natural and inherent cuntishness of us girls have of course been made much worse by the terrible effects of two hundred years of feminist propaganda, miseducation and anti-male laws brought in under its influence. Because feminism doesn't just elevate females to a special and privileged place in society simply because they have a cunt but also positively encourages girls to adopt cuntish attitudes and to behave in a cuntish way, Femboss (one of His many reforms in language and thInkIng) rechristened feminism as 'cuntism.'

Cuntism stands for a culture of entitlement and special treatment based on nothing more than the fact that females have a cunt. It's against nature and it promotes conflict between the genders when what we need is harmony and balance.

So, let's go back to basics. What exactly is the purpose of a cunt?

One obvious purpose is for us girls to piss out of. In that sense a cunt is functional so does have a practical application.

What are the other functions of a cunt? Unlike other female animals cunts don't come into heat but can be fucked both at any time of year and without pregnancy being the only goal of the male.

Basically, us girls have cunts so we can be fucked whenever men want to fuck us. As with our tits we have a cunt not for our own pleasure but for the pleasure of men

Another purpose of a cunt is to carry men's life-giving spunk inside us and fertilise our eggs. Once again, we are passive vessels receiving men's gift of life and so once more our cunt is there to serve men and not ourselves.

In every aspect of life nature shows that the whole purpose of us having a cunt is to serve men and for our cunt to be used by them.

So, as with our tits, our cunt is a part of our body that is primarily designed to give pleasure to men.

Trying to elevate something that is meant to be used by men and to serve them into something that somehow mysteriously gives cunts mystical 'rights' and 'entitlements' is a total perversion of nature.

Our cunts were meant to be used by men and to give them pleasure and not the other way around!

Anyway, rant over for the moment!

Section C A study of some key feminist thinkers

Simone de Beauvoir - The Second Sex

I'm not going to focus on the prehistory of the movement - Christine de Pisan, Mary Wollstonecraft or even the Suffragettes but I'm going to start with the writer whose book in practice launched the modern movement.

It's ironic that de Beauvoir's book The Second Sex, published in 1949 and intended to assert the equality of the genders, debases women to a level beneath the most misogynistic assault on females. De Beauvoir sees women as the perpetual 'other,' outside the human world as defined by men and in a sense, therefore not a person but a thing, utterly valueless. Woman is nothing but a passive victim, and men, whether they treat her with rudeness and contempt or with kindness and politeness, inevitably and through the mere fact of their interaction with her, sully and degrade her inevitably. Instead of men and women being partners, there is only the male aggressor and female victim, the male taskmaster and the female slave.

This attitude takes a purely androcentric view of the world in which the very existence of a woman, her very nature, is defined by and confined to her permanent and inescapable subjugation.

The root of the problem is 'Cartesian dualism,' the influence of the separation between the physical and mental made by the French thinker Rene Descartes in the seventeenth century. De Beauvoir and those feminists who follow her example are not just confusing equity with equality but, even worse, confusing equality with identity and sameness.

De Beauvoir insists that the differences between the genders are purely the result of cultural factors. But if sexual characteristics are determined by anything other than biology, they are purely arbitrary and faceless. We would no longer be individuals but simply chance throws of the dice or pieces on a chess-board being moved and manipulated but with neither power not identity in ourselves. Sexual sameness leads, not to the feminist utopia of liberation, but to the opposite goal, slavery and depersonalization.

This asexual feminism is not just factually false - given the lie by our own experience of life - but morally wrong. For the concept of the person and a specific role it substitutes an interchangeable part in a machine. All humanity becomes lost and slavery and dehumanization inevitably follow. To deny the biological roots of the differences between the sexes creates a world in which human beings no longer exist. In de Beauvoir's view of the world, woman is nothing, reduced to an object. It isn't male chauvinism, but feminism, that 'objectifies' women.

It's probably no accident that for many years de Beauvoir was the mistress of Jean- Paul Sartre. Sartre showed in all his writing that he was incapable of seeing human relationships in any form other than on terms of ownership. He saw people, and the relations between them, as a process of objectification. Love - which requires union and mutuality - is impossible in his distorted world view. Domination and submission are the only possibly human relationships for him.

De Beauvoir declares that 'the body is not enough' and 'biology is not enough' to define woman as a female. She denies the reality or at least the importance of applying biology to human life, just as she fails to examine the psychological factors involved in womanhood and, if it comes to that, manhood.

It's understandable that de Beauvoir wants to stress the importance of upbringing, environment, culture and so on as forces moulding the development of women because undoubtedly, even in 1949 when her book was published, the general view of women was too much based on assumptions that 'biology is destiny' and being born female made you, not simply different from, but inferior to, men.

G K Chesterton once said 'every heresy represents the overvaluation of some truth,' and that's as true of feminism as it is of any other belief system. The psychologist Alfred Adler talked about masculine and feminine roles in society and certainly regarded the cultural aspects of them as more important than the biological ones.

I'll quote a few of his ideas on the subject:

In general we can distinguish two types of women in the battle against the

feminine role. One type has already been indicated: the girl who develops in an

active, "masculine" direction. Very often she evades all the relationships of love

and marriage. This is the type that seeks to compensate for the evil of the

masculine attitude with a "masculine" response. The defence attitude towards

womanhood is the foundation of her whole being. Many girls go into business at an

early age because the independence connected with employment seems a

protection to them against the threatened necessity of marriage. Here again the

driving power is the disinclination to assume the womanly role.'

Adler goes on to point out that 'the division of labour' between the sexes is the problem. He points out that masculinity and femininity should not be defined by the cultural roles of man and women.

Of course he's right. Almost everything a man does can be done just as easily and well by a woman. The same is true of men. Other than pregnancy, childbirth and breastfeeding I can't think of any purely female role and I can't think of a single purely male role.

But science shows that we are born with a certain basic character arising from our genes. Being born a woman simply does have certain consequences which are rooted in biology rather than culture. Personality develops through social interaction while character is what we are born with.

There is no reason why a man can't bring up children (I know several single fathers who do a great job). There's no reason why women can't work as engineers, plumbers, building labourers and so on. (Again, I know quite a few who do).

But the role of a man or woman is not something that defines their masculinity or femininity. A single Dad is as much of a man as anyone else.

The heart of the non-problem against which de Beauvoir and her disciples are rebelling is their confusion between role and nature. I've had a lot of flak from feminists because they look at me, a mother of four, with horror.

'You're only a wife and mother?' they gasp. 'But - what do you do?'

Well, when I find the time I like to write - usually stories or poems but sometimes articles like this one.

Of all the things that drive me mad about feminism I find its contempt for motherhood - and fatherhood - the most despicable. I believe it's all down to the fact that, as Adler said, 'often she evades the responsibilities of love and marriage.'

What feminists - at least, the radical feminist variety - hate above everything else is love. One of them - not de Beauvoir, to be fair to her, but it could just as easily have been her as it fits in exactly with her thinking - described love as 'a trick of the patriarchy.'

What? So to care about another human being, to feel affection for them, to want to share your life with them, is simply a case of being brainwashed by 'the patriarchy?'

And if a man loves a woman - is that some kind of devious attempt to oppress her by stealth?

This is typical of feminist 'thinking' and their complete failure to comprehend any relationship that isn't based on some kind of 'power trip.'

Love is a union between people where each, though retaining their own identity and remaining separate selves, come together to form a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.

Love isn't something technical that you can design and operate with a blueprint. It's messy, scary, irrational and completely beyond your control. You can't 'decide' to love another person; you can't force anyone to love you any more than you can force yourself to love them. Love is something you either feel or you don't. You don't have to think about it or to analyse it; you just love or you don't. And in the case of de Beauvoir and almost every feminist I've ever met or read, love is a totally alien concept to them. All they can see is that love means surrender, submission, becoming a slave.

What a sad and perverted way of looking at the world!

Here we come to the heart of the feminist fear. It isn't just de Beauvoir or her disciples who fear love; it's everyone - man or woman - who can't see that human relations are based on emotion rather than logic and on trust and caring rather than some desire to oppress or some masochistic desire to be oppressed.

Back in the 1930s the psychologist Ian Suttie identified what he called 'a taboo on tenderness.' Feminist thinkers are shot through with this taboo, terrified that if they show love rather than hate, empathy rather than condemnation, moderation rather than extremism, calmness rather than aggression, fluidity rather than a perpetual desire to be in control - hell, they think if they go down that softer, subtler road they'll dissolve into weakness and become helpless victims!

Isn't it strange how feminists show such total contempt for women? Isn't it odd that they diss the 'feminine' virtues (in reality, human virtues) and only praise 'male' virtues and demand that women should follow them and renounce femininity?

In the twisted world view of de Beauvoir and her ilk, women have no value unless they become like men. This idea isn't just bizarre and insulting to women; if every woman did transform herself into an imitation of a man, wouldn't that make her every bit as much of a 'patriarchal oppressor' as she claims men are?

And of course this weird gender-fixated prejudice has distorted feminist thinking ever since.

Only since about the 1990s have some feminists started to refuse to accept this demand to be 'masculinised,' as if only by imitating male characteristics could they achieve any value. (I'll deal with some of the 1990s feminists in later articles).

A much earlier book, Joanna Field's 'A Life of One's Own,' published in 1934, was written by a woman who had spent most of her life denying her feminine side. She did marry but, as she said herself, 'did not feel particularly feminine.' Field identified femininity with surrender, just as de Beauvoir and Sartre identify it with submission. Field had a terror of 'surrendering' and instead adopted a masculine approach to life.

Pondering on why she felt unhappy, Field embarked on extensive self-analysis and tried various techniques of relaxation. At first, she found the experience of relaxing terrifying and felt that she was losing her sense of self when she did so.

She began to try and evolve a compromise position in which, rather than thinking of 'masculine' and 'feminine' characteristics, she thought of them as being active or passive. For a time, this satisfied her but as she began to 'let go' more often and more deeply she started to reconsider this idea.

Biology gave her a clue and she came to understand that even in the plant world, still more so the animal kingdom (to which humans also belong!), it is always the lot of the female to be receptive and of the male to be penetrative. Field discovered that this was true on every level of nature, not simply in terms of sexuality. She quotes the psychologist T J Faithful on the subject:

The egg cell or female gamete, slow-moving, placid, enduring, receptive, occupies itself with accumulation of food and libido for the ultimate purpose of creation - in a word, introverted; and the male gamete, active, impetuous, courageously self-sacrificing, with no reserves, resistive in the extreme, bent on forcing its personality and its body substance on the waiting ovum, possessing all those characteristics of the amoeba which are for action upon the outside world - in a word, extraverted.

Field, after her gradual realisation that 'feminine' was not equivalent to 'bad' and 'masculine' to 'good' but that both genders had positive and negative qualities that equipped them both for their proper role in life, stopped having an anti-feminine attitude and embraced her own feminine nature.

I'll return to de Beauvoir, whose attitude is what some psychologists have described as being 'a masculine woman' or 'a phallic woman.' She seems unable to distinguish between softness and weakness, selfhood and self-centredness, individuality and narcissism, union and abasement. There couldn't be a much bigger contrast than between her and Field. Field, analysing her own inner struggles, makes a comment that, fifteen years before 'The Second Sex' was published, seems an entirely fair and accurate criticism of de Beauvoir.

was it that to my blind thinking, with its inability to see more than one thing at once, the satisfaction of the female meant the wiping out of the male for ever? To satisfy the feminine to the full without the loss of one's individuality, perhaps this was an idea beyond the powers of blind thinking to grasp, since for it things must be either one or the other. And in its terror of losing the male in the female it had in fact lost both. I quite failed to realize that the bi-polarity of attitude shown in the characteristics of the spermatozoid and the ovum might permeate the whole of life.'

De Beauvoir and those who follow her views cannot love or even possess empathy. They believe that power and capability are things only men possess. Only by imitating men can women avoid failure and achieve power. Of course, their 'imitation' doesn't turn them into men any more than transvestites become women when they change clothing.

The 'phallic woman' is a caricature of maleness, lacking true masculinity and in its place setting up hatred, aggression and a desire to dominate and to oppress. Phallic women don't become like men; they just end up as vindictive, callous sadists.

It's no accident that de Beauvoir admires and praises the Marquis de Sade and wrote an essay on him. In her preface to de Sade's novel 'Justine,' she wrote that he 'posed the problem of the other in its most extreme terms.' She believes that his work puts forward a philosophy of rebellion, anti-patriarchy and freedom. In her eyes, he was 'a great moralist' even though 'he endorsed an unsatisfactory ethics.'

Now there's a lot I could say about de Sade but the basic criticism that I'd make of him is one that de Beauvoir never makes - which is that the type of 'freedom' he stands for is the 'freedom' of a complete egocentric person. He stands for the domination of the weak and innocent by the cruel and corrupt. She eventually gets around to admitting that she finds his view of freedom 'unsatisfactory' and even at one point seems to dimly understand that love does mean giving up a self-centred view but she soon loses sight of that and goes off on a tangent about 'the other' and nonsense like that.

Rebellion for its own sake, freedom without responsibility, all that kind of thing is just the expression of a narcissistic personality. De Sade certainly was a narcissist and de Beauvoir can't seem to see that it's his narcissism that was the root of his problems and his way of looking at the world.

Like de Sade, de Beauvoir stands for a view of life that to most of us is just morally wrong. Like him, she is self-centred, indifferent to the suffering of others and fundamentally anti-life,

She is one of the starkest possible refutations of the claim 'feminism is the radical claim that a woman is a human being.' In fact, feminism - particularly in the form that de Beauvoir and her followers present it - is quite the opposite. It is the radical claim that women are not human beings and that only men can ever be fully human. The logical conclusion of de Beauvoir's 'philosophy' is not a higher valuation of women but, ironically, a withering and contemptuous misogyny. Even Otto Weininger's misogynistic work shows less contempt for women than de Beauvoir does.

A study of feminism through some key thinkers - 2 - Betty Friedan

In my first article I talked about the real founder of modern feminism (second wave feminism if you prefer to call it that), Simone de Beauvoir in her 1949 book 'The Second Sex.'

This article will deal with the next important feminist thinker, a far more sympathetic character IMO than de Beauvoir whose cold lack of humanity I find disgusting and totally anti-life. As well as being logically and factually wrong on almost every level de Beauvoir is also morally wrong.

Betty Friedan's book The Feminine Mystique, published in 1963, is quite different. It's written in a spirit of anguish rather than anger, sympathy rather than callousness and instead of setting cultural norms and biology in opposition - as de Beauvoir does to the point of near insanity - Friedan sees both as part of a whole.

She begins by, IMO rightly, attacking the so-called 'standard' of beauty for women. The problem she addresses is very much still a live issue, at least in the West, and her criticisms of the pressure on women to conform to a mythical and, to be honest, impossible 'ideal' of beauty are as valid now as they were back in the 1950s when she made them.

Friedan points out that the 'standard' of this 'ideal' beauty are laid down by white men and that their 'ideal' automatically condemns all non-white women to second-class status even in 'the beauty stakes.' Slim, blonde-haired white women with bodies almost airbrushed out of existence, female sexuality safely transformed into some non-threatening antiseptic imitation of real women that is more like a living doll than a real human being - that's the paradigm she's (rightly) condemning.

Friedan also fiercely attacks - and again I agree with her - the stereotyped gender roles with the woman as having at least play the part of a 'dumb blonde,' the lack of ambition beyond that of becoming a housewife and mother, the expectation that the woman will simply cook and clean and have babies and not much else and in general the stereotyping of a woman's role and confining her 'sphere of influence' to the home and family.

Women are capable of doing pretty much anything a man can do and their gender shouldn't be a factor that holds them back. Even less should some 'ideal' of beauty dominate their appearance in life and it's even more ridiculous that they should be expected to behave like some living doll who never grows up.

The book includes an interview with a wife and mother who said she felt 'terror' at being alone, had never seen any kind of positive female role model for a 'working mother' and Friedan pointed out that this woman was anything but untypical.

Friedan described what she called 'the problem that has no name' as follows:

The problem lay buried, unspoken, for many years in the minds of American women. It was a strange stirring, a sense of dissatisfaction, a yearning [that is, a longing] that women suffered in the middle of the 20th century in the United States.

Each suburban [house] wife struggled with it alone. As she made the beds, shopped for groceries  she was afraid to ask even of herself the silent question — 'Is this all?"

The effects of the obsession with 'slimness' have largely created the crisis of anorexia and bulimia in the Western world.

All these things are totally avoidable and only come about because of the stupid desire to look like a stick insect.

The psychological stress of domesticity is an area Friedan addressed and, as she put it in her book, 'for over fifteen years women in America found it harder to talk about this problem than about sex.'

The role model of a single-income household with the man as the sole breadwinner was one that, in spite of the evidence of the war when women proved themselves capable of carrying out men's jobs just as well as the men themselves, hung around for many years.

Friedan doesn't see men as the enemy; she doesn't think that there's anything wrong with being a wife and mother; she doesn't think that a woman who is a wife and mother is some kind of failure.

What she wants is for women to have the same opportunities to work and be educated as men do.

Now this is where it gets complicated and I start to disagree with Friedan; not so much with what she's advocating herself as the way in which her followers (far fewer now than there once were, sadly; de Beauvoir and her disgusting cocktail of misogyny and misandry has replaced her liberal feminist approach to a large extent) have turned Friedan's entirely justified complaints into a litany of whinges, demands for special treatment, demonization of not just men but women who are 'only' wives and mothers and who basically are trying to create a matriarchy in place of the patriarchy which they believe existed before. (It's no accident that many of the rad fem misogynist/misandrist types are huge fans of the Bachofen/Brissault/Engels et al version of prehistory in which the myth of a former matriarchal culture - totally idealized rather than regarded as being just as capable of having faults as any patriarchy - is presented as holy writ).

Because the whole idea of patriarchy is so central to modern feminist thinking I'll deal with that in a later article. It's not really an issue that Friedan tackles in The Feminine Mystique where she's (rightly) concerned with the obsession with conformity to a ridiculous 'ideal' of feminine beauty and the confining of women to a role of domesticity.

Much of the second thrust of her complaints is addressed more fully in a slightly later work which I shall talk about in my next article. That will introduce my first British feminist thinker!

Friedan remained a champion of liberal values throughout her life. She saw feminism as a means of giving women greater opportunity in life and having a more varied way of interacting with the world rather than the home alone. As she got older and encountered the radical feminist lobby, she was appalled. She condemned them for their illiberalism, for their misandry, for their dishonesty and their overall demonstration of their misogyny by adopting the same distorted view of the world as de Beauvoir, where only 'male' values and characteristics matter and the only way forward for feminists was to become the type of 'phallic woman' we've already discussed in de Beauvoir's case.

Friedan condemned them roundly and coined a very appropriate name for them, 'female chauvinists.'

An engaging, loveable and complex character, she founded NOW (the National Organization for Women) though frankly the way it's developed in recent years would certainly not be in directions Friedan would have approved of.

A great thinker and influence and a woman who thoroughly deserves to be a feminist icon even though she's probably nowadays thought of as some old-hat liberal feminist who can be safely canonized and worshipped from a distance like Wollstonecraft.

A study of feminism through some key thinkers 3 -Hannah Gavron

Hannah Gavron is the first British feminist thinker I'm going to talk about. She, almost certainly picking up hints from Betty Friedan, wrote a ground-breaking book, The Captive Wife, published in 1965.

Gavron focused on the problems of women who were 'simply' wives and mothers - their lack of freedom, economic dependency on their husband, their relatively narrow experience of life and the world around them and of course the frequently boring and trivial existence they led.

Now as a mother of four myself I know how incredibly tedious, time-consuming and even soul-destroying motherhood can be. I'm also sympathetic to her view that a 'stay at home mum' can feel that her life is pretty much futile.

Of course the same's true of jobs - most people don't really enjoy their job (unless they're that tiny minority that's lucky enough to find a job they genuinely like) but of course it's easier (even in the present economic climate) to change a job than to give up being a parent.

Ironically, Gavron - though she clearly looked on herself as being a 'captive wife' - was nothing of the kind. Yes, she was unhappily married and had separated from her husband; yes, she was having an affair with another man; she was highly intelligent, well-liked and wealthy. Her children were looked after by a nanny and she worked as a teacher of sociology as well as writing for newspapers and appearing on radio and television. During the course of her research she produced her book, The Captive Wife, examining the lives of ordinary housewives and mothers.

Her father, in whom she seems to have confided far more than her husband, wrote in his diary that Gavron was 'fighting for her identity as an individual' and that her husband was determined to 'dominate' her. His response was to tell his daughter that she ought to see a psychiatrist to deal with her obvious mental problems.

Her son Jeremy, who wrote a biography of her many years later, said of his mother: 'Hannah was a woman who needed to fulfil herself the way men fulfil themselves. I think the trouble she got into was that she was too far ahead. She left other women behind.' On the afternoon of 14 December 1965 Hannah Gavron dropped her youngest son off at a Christmas party and drove to a friend's flat in Primrose Hill.

She drank heavily and took drugs before sealing the kitchen doors and windows and turning on the gas oven. Later a gas fitter found her body but she was already dead.

Jeremy Gavron admits that 'I knew so little about who Hannah was. It was important for me to be heard. As children, we weren't. She disappeared from one day to the next.'

Hannah Gavron's suicide is of course a terrible human tragedy. I don't think I could have done what she did and left her two young children behind to kill myself. To be honest, sad and lonely though she probably was, I feel she should have shown a sense of responsibility to her kids and just found a life elsewhere.

The Captive Wife remains a ground-breaking book and one that, like Friedan's Feminine Mystique, genuinely addresses some real and important problems in women's lives. It's ironic that Gavron herself was never in the same position as the women in Kentish Town that she wrote about and on the basis of whose experiences she tried to formulate a philosophy of liberating women from a purely domestic sphere. Maybe part of the problem lies in the words of her son 'a woman who needed to fulfil herself the way men fulfil themselves.' If she'd tried to find a female response to the problem rather than automatically assuming that only male responses mattered, she might still have been alive.

And of course 'captivity' is a relative term; Gavron clearly felt that The Captive Wife applied to her as well as to the ordinary women she wrote about. But actually she was never any kind of 'captive wife.'

The book is a huge landmark in feminism and pre-dates the so-called 'Second Wave' which of course picked up on some of her ideas as they did those of Friedan and de Beauvoir. Gavron was a pioneer and deserves to be remembered for her achievement in questioning the traditional role of housewives and mothers.

Some general thoughts on the change from liberal feminism to radical feminism

In Britain at least it was the criticisms of 'feminine beauty' by Betty Friedan and of a purely domestic role for women by both Friedan and Hannah Gavron which launched British feminism. Many of the early exponents of 'second wave' feminism picked up specifically on those aspects of their work.

The 'second wave' appeared in Britain in various ways, not necessarily directly related to consciously 'feminist' ideas. Demands for equal pay for women workers began to be heard with the strike by women workers at the Ford factory in Dagenham capturing media attention and achieving their goal. Barbara Castle was a high-profile Cabinet minister who was thought of as a possible woman Prime Minister. Some equal opportunity legislation was passed and abortion was made legal. Contraception became widely available and cheaper which meant that women (and men) could have sex without worrying over unwanted pregnancies.

All these practical changes failed to satisfy the growing radical wing of 'second wave' feminism. Their views focused primarily on the question of 'housework' and many of them began to move away from the demand for equality of opportunity towards a more hostile approach towards men as a gender.

British feminists soon split into three different strands. One, often described, especially by its critics, as 'liberal feminism,' continued to stand for equal opportunity, focusing on economic issues, rape, domestic violence and similar topics. A second wing, taking its cue from Engels, Lenin, Wilhelm Reich and various other thinkers in the Communist tradition, evolved a movement that might loosely be called 'Marxist feminism.' The third wing, often but not always dominated by lesbians, evolved into 'radical feminism.'

In America liberal feminism almost disappeared during the 1960s and 1970s. What was then generally referred to, at least by the media, as 'women's liberation' or, more flippantly, 'women's lib,' became dominated either by the Marxists or the rad fems. Rad fems also tended to have their own splinter factions, some partly Marxist and partly fascist, others extreme fascists and others obsessed with what some feminists called 'the problem of a woman's body.' There was also the 'hippy' type of feminism which seemed happy just to take drugs, meditate, have 'consciousness raising' sessions and generally waffle on with pretty vague and meaningless pseudo-mysticism. Some of the hippies eventually became the godmothers of the slightly later 'eco-feminism' ideology.

British feminists in the 1970s wrote a lot but none of them had the brilliance, originality and scope of Hannah Gavron. They tended either to obsess over specific topics or to just swallow whole the ideology being imported from the U.S. If you look at the leading British feminists in the seventies - Micheline Wandor, Sheila Rowbotham, Rosie Boycott, Marsha Rowe, Sue O'Sullivan, Amanda Sebestyen, Barbara Taylor, Aileen Christianson, Susie Orbach and Lise Eichenbaum - and compare them with the American figures of the same era - Kate Millett, Robin Morgan, Andrea Dworkin, Gloria Steinem, and Shulamith Firestone - you see that, even though all the Americans listed, especially Dworkin, put forward many ideas that I find not just stupid but downright evil - they are in a different league. Instead of obsessing about trivia they tried to evolve a new philosophy of what it meant to be female.

Even though I think their conclusions were narrow, simplistic, sometimes fuelled by bitterness and far too wedded to a kind of 'separatist' agenda, I'm still filled with admiration for these American women. They really - and justifiably IMO - felt that the situation of women in America was just not acceptable and they tried to campaign to change attitudes and to bring in legislation that in their view would help empower women.

Although the 1970s in Britain saw a number of gains for women, legislatively, economically and even (in perhaps a rather back-handed way) politically with the election of Margaret Thatcher as the first woman Prime Minister of Britain, the level of intellectual debate by British feminists was far lower than their American counterparts. British feminism tended to be dominated by the Marxist wing while the American movement was far less monolithic (though with the growing influence of the 'separatists' like Dworkin and others it tended to become the section of the feminist movement that grabbed the headlines and began to turn many women away from feminism as its shrill dogmatism and frequent descent into misandry and even racism made many working-class and non-white women ask if this 'feminism' wasn't just yet an excuse for white middle-class women to gain extra privileges in society at the expense of their proletarian and non-white 'sisters.'

And, of course, the rad fems - especially the 'mandatory lesbian' wing of the movement - denounced motherhood and the family and men in general in terms that remind you irresistibly of the Nazi tirades against the Jews. What began by calling for the liberation of women soon descended into an attempt to demonize men and to denounce women who didn't share their misandry - especially if they dared to be wives and mothers - as 'Aunt Toms.'

In my next article I'll talk about what's generally called 'Second Wave Feminism.'

Second Wave Feminism

Second Wave feminism was launched in America in 1968 (unless you count Valerie Solanas the previous year - I'll write about her in my next article.) It soon crossed the Atlantic to Britain and, less successfully, Europe. Its main exponents were Kate Millett, Germaine Greer, Shulamith Firestone and Andrea Dworkin. All have some differences with one another but, broadly speaking, as well as the demands for equal opportunity that Friedan, Gavron and others had already made, they focused on issues primarily relating to women's bodies and sexuality.

Having read all four of them I find Millett the most rational and fair-minded. Firestone is a bit flaky, Greer is certainly intelligent but not just full of self- contradiction but at times she is outright dishonest. Dworkin is either completely mad or downright evil - I still can't make up my mind about which she is.

Issues like rape and sexual harassment had been tackled by previous feminist writers and thinkers but this group of women put them at the forefront of their programme. The second wave feminists were overwhelmingly white middle-class women and as their entry into the public gaze also coincided with the push by American blacks for Civil Rights this often created a lot of tension, both between them and black men and women and between black women who wanted to push for feminist issues but who either felt or were sternly told by black men that women's issues were a sideshow and that getting greater rights for blacks in general mattered. Women's liberation, they were told, could come later. Those black women who insisted on raising the issues within their community were often condemned, ostracized and accused of diverting attention from the wider struggle.

It didn't help that although almost all feminists - second wave or otherwise \- sympathized with or even actively supported the black struggle - their main focus, inevitably, was on their demands for greater rights for women.

Abortion was still illegal in the United States until 1973 when the Roe v Wade case resulted in a decision that women were entitled to terminate their pregnancies. This verdict was one of the key issues that led to the rise of the religious right in America and one of their main objectives remains to abolish or at least make abortion virtually impossible to obtain.

In my next article I'll deal with the first rad fem to hit the headlines. Then I'll pass on to some more important feminist thinkers.

Valerie Solanas

In a way you could argue that Valerie Solanas belongs more to the history of self- publicity than to feminism but in spite of the fact that she was clearly barking mad her S.C.U.M. Manifesto continues to be reprinted by feminist sites all over the internet and doesn't seem to attract any serious condemnation from them. Solanas was a difficult child and was sexually abused by her father. After her parents divorced she was sent away to live with her grandparents. Her grandfather abused her and she ran away and slept rough.

She managed to go to university and get a degree in psychology, after which she began work as a writer. Over the course of a few years she wrote what she's best known for (apart from trying to kill Andy Warhol), the SCUM Manifesto. This called on women to 'overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and eliminate the male sex.' It described men as 'walking abortions' and called every male 'a walking dildo.'

Solanas supported herself by begging and prostitution and became an outspoken champion of lesbian sex.

In 1967 she published the SCUM Manifesto which has sometimes been seen as a satirical work but Solanas vehemently denied that it was 'a put on' and insisted that she was 'dead serious.' It attracted little attention at first but when in 1968 she shot (non-fatally) Andy Warhol she became a sudden celebrity. Opinions both on Solanas herself and on her SCUM Manifesto varied widely. Robert Marmorstein wrote in 'The Village Voice' that she 'has dedicated the remainder of her life to the avowed purpose of eliminating every single male from the face of the earth,' while Norman Mailer described her as being the 'Robespierre of feminism.'

By contrast, Ti-Grace Atkinson, President of the New York chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW), called Solanas 'the first outstanding champion of women's rights' and described her as 'a heroine of the feminist movement.' This open support of Solanas by Atkinson led to a split in NOW with the more moderate members indignantly repudiating Atkinson's views, after which she founded another feminist group. In spite of that, as Friedan said, 'the media continued to treat Ti-Grace as a leader of the women's movement, despite its repudiation of her.'

This split led to growing friction between the radical Second Wave feminists and the 'liberal feminists' such as Friedan. Atkinson and other radical feminists regarded NOW and its then leaders as being 'a civil disobedience luncheon club' and of accepting 'cultural codes of feminine politeness and decorum which the SCUM Manifesto identifies as the source of women's debased social status.' Florynce Kennedy, another who left NOW over the Solanas affair, described her as 'one of the most important spokeswomen of the feminist movement.'

Even among Second Wave feminists, Solanas remains a controversial and slightly embarrassing figure. Catherine Lord goes as far as to say that 'the feminist movement would not have happened without Valerie Solanas,' and that NOW's condemnation of her actions and her manifesto led to the radicalization of other feminists. Avita Ronell has a more complex view of Solanas, comparing her with Lorena Bobbitt, Medea, Medusa, the Unabomber and 'a girl Nietzsche.' She believes that she found the very 'feminine' women working with Warhol threatening and felt that she was rejected and isolated because of her lesbianism and even her feminism. Breanne Fahs takes the view that Solanas' attitudes alienate 'her from the feminist movement'

The SCUM Manifesto continues to be widely available and both cited and praised by many rad fems. The Manifesto opens with the following declaration:

"Life" in this "society" being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of "society" being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and eliminate the male sex.

Solanas begins by declaring that a male is an 'incomplete female' who is genetically inferior as a result of possessing the Y chromosome. Because he suffers from this genetic deficiency, he is self-centred, emotionally defective, unable to feel or display passion or to interact with others. Males lack empathy and can only relate to their own physical sensations. She claims that men spend their lives trying to become female in order to overcome their innate inferiority. In Solanas' own words, he attempts to achieve this by 'constantly seeking out, fraternizing with and trying to live through and fuse with the female.' She rejects Freud's theories about women having 'penis envy' and instead claims that men have 'pussy envy.'

After formulating these ideas she goes into a long rant about 'grievances' against men. They are a mixed bag and frankly a lot of them are completely irrational. Her 'grievances' are:

War

Niceness, Politeness and "Dignity"

Money, Marriage and Prostitution, Work and Prevention of an Automated Society

Fatherhood and Mental Illness (fear, cowardice, timidity, humility, insecurity, passivity)

Suppression of Individuality, Animalism (domesticity and motherhood) and Functionalism

Prevention of Privacy

Isolation, Suburbs and Prevention of Community

Conformity

Authority and Government

Philosophy, Religion and Morality Based on Sex

Prejudice (racial, ethnic, religious, etc.)

Competition, Prestige, Status, Formal Education, Ignorance and Social and

Economic Classes

Prevention of Conversation

Prevention of Friendship and Love

"Great Art" and "Culture"

Sexuality

Boredom

Secrecy, Censorship, Suppression of Knowledge and Ideas, and Exposés

Distrust

Ugliness

Hate and Violence

Disease and Death

It's such a scatter-gun approach that it's almost laughable but I'll try to deal with each of these 'grievances' in a serious way.

War of course is something most of us - male or female - hate and we understand that it brings death, suffering and is not something to be praised. It's also true that it's overwhelmingly men who fight wars.

But there are plenty of male pacifists - perhaps more nowadays than there have ever been - and it completely ignores the part that women play in war. Not only are women increasingly serving directly in the military - something that was perhaps less true in 1967 - but they play a vital support role for the conduct of war on every level, working, nursing, food and so on. So maybe to see war as an exclusively male problem is a bit simplistic.

And, of course, it completely ignores the fact that women in power have been just as warlike and ruthless as men - rulers like Hatshepsut and Cleopatra, Boudicca, Isabelle of Angoulême, Margaret of Anjou, Esclarmonde de Foix, Esclarmonde d'Alion, Joan of Arc, Jeanne de Montfort, Indira Gandhi, Golda Meier, Sirimavo Bandaranaike, Jiang Qing, Margaret Thatcher and other female leaders were every bit as warlike and ruthless as the men. So the 'war' angle is naive at best and deliberately dishonest at worst.

'Niceness, politeness and dignity' is a really weird bunch of 'grievances.' What is wrong with being nice to people rather than being unpleasant? What is wrong with being polite rather than rude? As for dignity, we all surely need to have some sense of self-worth and to deny that is to make us less than human.

Money, Marriage and Prostitution, Work and Prevention of an Automated Society is a really weird mixture of ideas. It's one thing to be against the over-emphasis on money that capitalism places on it; it's another to assume that somehow that's uniquely associated with men rather than with a particular economic system. The idea of abolishing money has been put forward by many thinkers over the centuries - overwhelmingly by male ones, as it happens - and whatever the pros and cons it is just dishonest to pretend that somehow 'money' is all about 'male power' or 'patriarchy' - especially when in the West it's the women who tend to own most of the money.

Marriage of course is an area where women certainly have been disadvantaged in the past but these days it's overwhelmingly men who are the losers rather than women. Even in the 1960s (when Solanas wrote) her view of marriage was antiquated.

Prostitution - well, let's look at the reality of that. For all the scare stories in the media about 'sex trafficking' and 'white slave trade' for the overwhelming majority of women prostitution is a voluntary career choice. They know that they can make good money simply for renting out their body for sex. Sure, we can all agree that it would be better if they didn't go down that road but to make out that somehow prostitution is some tool of the 'patriarchy' and that helpless, innocent female victims are at the mercy of rapacious men is just dishonest.

If it comes to that in the West most prostitutes nowadays are men rather than women.

Work - well, leaving aside the question of whether we can have or should want a 'workless society' (there are a lot of good points in favour of that idea as well as a lot of good ones against it) again, 'work' is somehow presented as some kind of an 'absolute' and inherently good even though for most people it's boring, degrading, often dangerous and poorly paid. For what it's worth (and I freely agree that times have moved on and improved since 1967 when Solanas wrote her book) the pay of women has sky-rocketed to the point where the 'gender gap' in wages is largely mythical.

The idea that 'the patriarchy' wants to 'prevent' an 'automated society' is truly hilarious. The one thing capitalism hates is having to pay its workers and if they could do away with them entirely and replace them with robots they would be totally delighted.

On the other hand, how are the 'non-workers' going to be able to live with no source of income? As usual, Solanas spits vitriol but doesn't think through the logical consequences of her ideas.

Fatherhood and Mental Illness (fear, cowardice, timidity, humility, insecurity, passivity) - this is another weird rag-bag of disconnected nonsense. Let's start with the most obvious objections. Does Solanas seriously believe that only men - or at least only fathers - suffer from mental illness? Does she seriously believe that women either don't suffer from it or that if they do it's always the fault of the men in their lives or the men in the wider world? Does she seriously believe that men and women aren't both equally capable of being frightened, cowardly, timid, humble, insecure and passive?

If she does, she really is on the level of someone who thinks they are a poached egg.

And if we're talking about mental illness surrounding child care, mothers are far more likely to suffer from that than fathers which is no doubt why most murders of children are carried out by mothers rather than by fathers.

Suppression of Individuality, Animalism (domesticity and motherhood) and Functionalism - again, a weird mixture that reads like a psychiatric case-book of a paranoid schizophrenic patient. Both men and women are equally capable of being and of behaving like individuals and of trying to suppress the other person. Plenty of women bully their husbands, make them feel unworthy, suppress their individuality. What we're talking about here isn't some kind of patriarchal conspiracy or some big male oppression but faults in human relationships due to individual character flaws.

Animalism is a strange term to use. Humans are animals (though Solanas seems to find it hard to accept that women are) and to equate 'animalism' with 'domesticity and motherhood' is truly bizarre. 'Domesticity' just means living in a home and to be honest that's how nearly all the people of the world live and - shock, horror! - live that way because it's better. What is the alternative to 'domesticity?' Living in caves? Nomadism? Even by Solanas' standards that's a weird and particularly stupid thing to say.

As for motherhood, either she just hates children or she wants the human race to die out. Without mothers becoming pregnant and giving birth, humans would become as extinct as the dodo. Is that what she wants? If it is, that makes Solanas, not just a misandrist but a misanthrope.

Prevention of Privacy - how and in what way this is supposed to work escapes me. Women who are non-working mothers have a lot of free time and a lot of opportunities for privacy. There is far less privacy for a working woman than for a housewife and mother. Solanas is simply talking utter crap.

Isolation, Suburbs and Prevention of Community - in this list of 'grievances' Solanas shows her utter snobbery as well as her total lack of empathy and her lack of contact with the outside world. Isolation is a human condition that can apply in a small village, a big city, a medium-sized town or the suburbs - in fact, everywhere. Nor is isolation something that only women feel; millions of men feel isolated too. It's the nature of the global world and the 'automated society' that Solanas advocates would lead to more isolation rather than less. Suburbs, like cities, villages and towns, have their good and bad points. Her reason for despising them is snobbery pure and simple - the arrogance of a 'metropolitan elite' mind-set. Prevention of community - again Solanas shows her paranoia. There is no kind of deliberate attempt to 'prevent' community; what has destroyed so many communities is rootlessness, the changing balance in the local population, the nature of work and of life in general. It's the downside of a society that doesn't value people as much as it does things and, as usual, what Solanas is doing is confusing one of the by-products of capitalism with a devious and malevolent 'patriarchal conspiracy.'

Conformity is something that again isn't gender-specific; there are plenty of totally conventional people of both genders as well as plenty of non-conformists who are both men and women. It's literally mad to believe anything different.

Authority and government - well, there's a lot to be said for the anarchist case against the state. But both authority and governments have been around long before Solanas and while I'm quite happy to see them dissed it's just dishonest to make out that somehow this is a uniquely 'male' phenomenon. Women rulers have been every bit as authoritarian and 'governmental' as men. So only by deliberate dishonesty can she try and make that a gender issue.

Philosophy, Religion and Morality based on sex - this is a really weird and again, deliberately dishonest, way of looking at the world. It's true that most philosophers have been men; so what? There have been women philosophers as well though I'd freely admit they haven't on the whole got the same 'name recognition' as the men. Hypatia, Hildegard, Christine de Pisan are great names from the past and in the last hundred years or so women like Mary Midgeley, Elizabeth Anscombe and others have also come into prominence and been widely respected.

As for religion, Solanas really is on shaky ground. For most of human history Goddesses have been worshipped at least as frequently as male Gods and that's still the case in large parts of the world. Wicca tends to place almost all its emphasis on the Goddess rather than the 'Horned God' and many Wiccan groups are openly 'Goddess monotheistic.' Even in Christianity the Virgin Mary has a special status.

Even in Islam the two wives of Mohammed have a special status. Even Judaism, which is perhaps the most 'anti-female' religion of the lot, has some respect for them, particularly Liberal Judaism.

Morality based on sex is rather strange. In a way I understand Solanas if she's objecting to the Puritanical attitude to sex and the human body but it seems a bit more than that. I can understand female objections to the 'double standard' where men can be promiscuous but a promiscuous woman is a slut. But in a way morality and sex are linked - isn't rape considered by most people immoral? Paedophilia? So to try to make out that morality and sex have nothing to do with each other is just a charter for rape, paedophilia, sexual abuse and so. Once again, under the pretence of liberating women, Solanas wants to enslave them every bit as much as she does men.

As for prejudice, most decent people aren't prejudiced against people simply because of their colour, ethnicity, religion or sexuality (as long as it's consenting adults). But surely misandry is a prejudice? And on that count Solanas is definitely guilty as charged.

I could go on and on rebutting Solanas' list of 'grievances' point by point but it wouldn't achieve much. Those feminists who agree with her have minds so closed they wouldn't see the force of rational argument and the others already know that what she says is just a vicious series of lies.

Solanas, having listed her 'grievances,' declares that the only 'solution' is to 'eliminate the male sex.' The cold way in which she imitates Hitler and Himmler (though with a different target) chills the blood.

I'm now going to turn to one of the few areas where I think Solanas is actually right. Her biology is decidedly dodgy (if it comes to that more recent evolutionary biology has shown the opposite of what she claims - it's shown that actually women are less evolved than men and are closer to the apes in their DNA than men are) but her psychology, though flaky, scores some powerful hits.

Some of her criticism of Freud is acute. When she denies that women suffer from 'penis envy' she's mainly right. And her suggestion that men suffer from 'pussy envy' also rings true a lot.

Let's briefly show how biology has created a problem that psychology has not managed to solve. A woman simply is specialized to bear children and to breast feed so from an organic point of view she can nurture a child. But fathers, except in terms of pregnancy, birth and lactation, can perform the other functions of parenting just as well as a mother. A loving father, even with artificial milk, can never quite share in the physical bond between mother and child. This of course also creates a deep emotional bond between them.

The couvade, a simulation by the husband of a mock 'childbirth' and 'lying in,' is a clear demonstration of the desire by the husband to have given birth to the child himself.

Even more striking proof of this is shown by the rituals and beliefs of the Arbanda, an Australian aboriginal tribe. They claim that men can bear children, and through sub-incision create a wound in the urethra to which they give their name for the female genitals. Periodically they make this 'arbata-hole' (as they call it) bleed and at these rituals, women are deliberately excluded. Almost uniquely among primitive people (and I don't mean that in any patronizing Western superiority way) they also have no ceremonies or taboos about menstruation.

So (along with a lot of other evidence) it seems that Solanas is right about men suffering from 'pussy envy' (though maybe it would be more accurate to call it 'womb envy' or 'childbirth envy') and I suppose, given the crock of dreck she throws at the world, getting one thing - and a surprising one - right can only be admired.

Now though Solanas could be said to belong to the history of self-publicity more than feminism, I disagree. Her influence on the rad fem movement has been huge. Even when she's dismissed or criticized, it's always done from a kind of admiring perspective by the rad fems rather than wholesale condemnation.

In my next article I'll talk about another important rad fem thinker, and mercifully a far more rational one than Solanas, Kate Millett. Her book Sexual Politics pretty much launched the Second Wave of feminism.

Kate Millett

Kate Millett was one of the most important thinkers of Second Wave feminism. The journalist Liza Featherstone credits her with making possible 'legal abortion, greater professional equality between the sexes, and a sexual freedom."

Millett is best known as a feminist but she campaigned for human rights, against psychiatric treatment and for peace. In the 1970 anthology by Robin Morgan, Sisterhood is Powerful, Millett contributed the article "Sexual politics in literature." The same year saw the publication of her first and most influential book, Sexual Politics.

Sexual Politics has been described as a work that 'articulated a theory of patriarchy and conceptualized the gender and sexual oppression of women in terms that demanded a sex role revolution with radical changes of personal and family lifestyles.' It focused on the work of the writers D H Lawrence, Henry Miller and Norman Miller and accused them of sexism and heterosexism. She contrasted their views on life and in particular their responses to women with those of the French homosexual Jean Genet. Millett considered their attitudes to be 'patriarchal' and suggested that these 'patriarchal attitudes' led to 'sex-based oppression.' Her 'solution' was that only through destroying the traditional nuclear family unit would true sexual revolution be possible. Sexual Politics became a best-seller with 80,000 copies of the book sold. She became seen as the spokesperson of the Second Wave feminists.

In the year of its publication she came out as a lesbian – more accurately, bisexual. This made many feminists turn against her and her struggle for years with mental health issues also led to her losing the wider audience that she had initially captured with her first book.

In her second book The Prostitution Papers, published in 1971, Millett saw prostitution not as a business transaction between consenting adults but as being a true picture of what sex is for heterosexual women. She believed that prostitution was the sale of 'degradation and power' rather than the sale of sex. In her eyes prostitution exposed the subjection of women at its clearest while marriage disguised the true nature of their subjection. Millett's solution was to call for the decriminalization of prostitution and for the industry to be run by the sex workers. How, if she seriously believes that heterosexual sex is about 'degradation and power' and that prostitution simply shows a more open form of female subjugation, she imagines that letting the whores run the show would avoid these aspects of it, isn't really made clear.

By this stage Millett's mental problems were already beginning to cloud her judgment. She'd made enemies by revealing secrets that other people had told her and was becoming seen as – even by many rad fems – a loose cannon, elitist and untrustworthy. She became fascinated by the appalling torture-murder of teenager Sylvia Likens by Gertrude Baniszewski in 1965 and spent four years writing a book on the subject. Millett saw Baniszewski's crime not as the act of a brutal psychopath but as, in her own words, 'the story of the suppression of women. Gertrude seems to have wanted to administer some terrible truthful justice to this girl: that this was what it was to be a woman.'

What a sick fucking way of looking at the brutal murder of a young woman! If this is feminist justice, fuck feminist justice!

Having more or less turned a female psychopath into some sort of 'feminist warrior' Millett then turned her attention to defending paedophilia. In an interview with Mark Blasius, she called age of consent laws 'very oppressive' in particular to gay men. She also added that 'one of children's essential rights is to express themselves sexually, probably primarily with each other but with adults as well.' She declared that 'the sexual freedom of children is an important part of a sexual revolution' and added that 'no mention is made of relationships between women and girls.'

So as well as throwing buckets of water over a cold-blooded and brutal murderer, being happy with prostitution as long as it's run by women, Millett also defends paedophile nonces – especially lesbian ones – and thinks their behaviour is fine. Some feminist!

Having said all that – and I could make a lot more criticisms of Millett even in terms of Sexual Politics – her first and best book, she does identify some genuine problems in terms of sexual relationships, marriage and other aspects of gender interaction. Her analysis is often acute in that book even if some of her solutions seem dubious at best and counter-productive at worst. She deserves her place as a serious thinker which is more than I can say of some of the 'big names' in the feminist movement.

Germaine Greer

Germaine Greer was originally from Australia – a culture not known for its feminist sympathies especially during the fifties and sixties – but came to Britain and became regarded as a 'feminist intellectual.' Her book The Female Eunuch was hugely successful and led many women to regard themselves as 'victims' rather than the people they really were. If one single woman can be blamed for the 'victim culture' in which too many feminists like to wallow, Greer is the person to blame.She is intelligent but frequently dishonest, both in terms of her arguments and in terms of her selective quotations and examples.

Greer sprang to fame when The Female Eunuch was published in 1970. She claimed in the book that women had no idea how much men hate them or how much they are taught (by men?) to hate themselves. Greer declared that "women have somehow been separated from their libido, from their faculty of desire, from their sexuality. Women have been cut off from their capacity for action. Like Millett, she blamed the family for creating a bad environment for both women and children. She also claimed that women's sexuality was a construct in Western society and that it was demeaning and restrictive for women. Girls, so Greer claims, are taught from childhood to be subjugated and when they become women they already feel a sense of shame about their bodies and themselves. Women, Greer says, should turn their backs on monogamy and celibacy – her attack on celibacy is rather strange, reminiscent of Jayne Mansfield's attack on 'chastity' from a completely different perspective. What Greer appears to be pushing is a new stereotype of a promiscuous slut which she – either out of deliberate dishonesty, a wish to shock or genuine mental confusion – seems to regard as being the most appropriate role model for women.

The Female Eunuch makes much of pornography and quite falsely tries to equate even the mildest forms of it with hardcore BDSM and snuff. She is much given to selective quotations – the example from Hubert Selby's Last Exit to Brooklyn is notorious for its dishonesty and was rightly savaged by Arianna Stassinopoulos in her rebuttal, The Female Woman.

The Whole Woman adds nothing substantial to The Female Eunuch. Its tone is shriller and more hysterical and her selective indignation is even more hypocritical than it was in the earlier work. Ironically, it adds to the picture that her first work irresistibly presents to me – of Greer as the grandmother of the ladette.

I see Greer as an intelligent but consciously dishonest woman who set out to make money and fame out of dissing men, mothers and married women. She puts forward a view of society that to me is more like a vision of vacancy and even hell than any kind of freedom or Utopia. But she is certainly challenging and when she wants to be she can be one of the most thoughtful of all the Second Wave feminists.

Final thoughts on Feminism

Feminism has produced many thinkers since those early days. Some now call themselves Post-Feminists or New Feminists. Others have adopted the worst excesses of the Second Wave and made it even more reminiscent of Nazism. Andrea Dworkin and Catherine McKinnon are perhaps the two worst examples. It's no accident that they eagerly joined forces with the religious right under the excuse of attacking pornography. It's no accident that they've corrupted jurisprudence – particularly in America – so that cases of rape, domestic violence, marital breakdown and similar issues are now dealt with, not through 'due process' and with the 'presumption of innocence,' but through kangaroo courts, the violation of legal rights and the routine use of conscious fraud to achieve the desired results.

Last Words

I'm not under any illusions that many of my ideas won't shock or horrify some people. Nor am I some kind of evangelical trying to persuade society to do a U-turn and reverse what I see as many of the negative aspects of the world at the moment.

But I do hope that people will at least try to read me with an open mind and might find in my rambling thoughts maybe some that will give them a different perspective on life.

Further reading and study

Books

Alfred Adler, Understanding Human Nature, Allen & Unwin, 1932

Alfred Adler, What Life Could Mean to You, Oneworld Publications, 2009

Robert Ardrey, The Hunting Hypothesis, Storydesign, 2014

Robert Ardrey, The Social Contract, Storydesign, 2014

Aristotle, Ethics, Wiley, 1988

Johann Jakob Bachhofen, Myth Religion and Mother Right, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1968

Richard Barber, The Knight and Chivalry, Longman, 1970

Simon Baron-Cohen, The Essential Difference, Penguin, 2012

Roy F Baumeister, Is There Anything Good About Men, Oxford University Press, 2010

Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, Vintage Classics, 1997

David Benatar, The Second Sexism, Wiley-Blackwell, 2012

Annie Besant, Marriage, as it was, as it is, and as it should be, Createspace, 2016

Bob Black, Feminism as Fascism, in The Abolition of Work, Loompanics Unlimited, 1985

Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind, Penguin, 1987

Robert Briffault, The Mothers, Holiday House, 1977

Helen Gurley Brown, Sex and the Single Girl, Bernard Geis, 1969

Julia Bush, Women Against the Vote, Oxford University Press, 2007

F J J Buytendijk, Woman, Newman Press, 1968

Carroll Camden, The Elizabethan Woman, Cleaver Humphries, 1954

Jane Jerome Camhi, Women Against Women, Carlson, 1994

Andreas Cappelanus, The Art of Courtly Love, Columbia University, 1941

Baldasar Castiglione, The Courtier, Penguin, 1976

Bernard Chapin, Women: Theory and Practice, Conservadom Books, 2007

Rosalind Coward, Sacred Cows, Harper Collins, 1999

Mike Cernovich, Gorilla Mindset, Createspace, 2015

H J Chaytor, The Troubadours and England, Cambridge University, 1923

M Cioran, The Trouble with Being Born, Quartet, 1993

Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, Collins, 2011

Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, Wordsworth, 2013

Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, Oxford University Press, 1990

Rene Denfeld, The New Victorians, Time Warner, 1996

Daniel Dennett, Consciousness Explained, Penguin, 1993

Wendy Dennis, Hot and Bothered, Penguin, 1992

Helene Deutsch, The Psychology of Women, Grune and Stratton, 1958

James Diamond, The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee, Vintage, 1992

Helen Diner, Mothers and Amazons, Doubleday, 1973

James C Dobson, Bringing Up Girls, Tyndale Momentum, 2014

E R Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational, University of California, 1951

Jack Donovan, The Way of Men, Dissonant Hun, 2012

Susan J Douglas, Where the Girls Are, Time Books, 1995

Tim Edwards, Men in the Mirror, Cassell, 1997

Havelock Ellis, Man and Woman, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2013

Havelock Ellis, Selected Essays, Pomona Press, 2007

Friedrich Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, Penguin, 2010

Erik H Erikson, Childhood and Society, Norton, 1950

Erik H Erikson, Identity and the Life Cycle, International University Press, 1961

Erik H Erikson, Young Man Luther, Faber, 1958

Susan Faludi, Backlash, Chatto & Windus, 1992

Susan Faludi, Stiffed, Chatto & Windus, 1999

Marynia Farnham and Ferdinand Lundberg, Modern Woman: The Lost Sex, Harper, 1947

Warren Farrell, The Myth of Male Power, Berkley, 2001

Otto Fenichel, The Psychoanalytic Theory of Neuroses, Burton, 1945

Leslie A Fiedler, Love and Death in the American Novel, Criterion, 1960

Joanna Field, A Life of One's Own, Chatto & Windus, 1935

Brian J Ford, Sensitive Souls, Warner, 1999

Michel Foucault, Madness and Civilization, Tavistock Methuen, 1967

Suzanne Franks, Having None of It, Granta, 1999

C H Freedman, Manhood Redux, Spence, 1985

Maureen Freely, What about Us, Bloomsbury, 1996

Betty Friedan, The Feminist Mystique, Penguin, 2010

Betty Friedan, It Changed My Life, Harvard University, 1998

Betty Friedan, The Second Stage, Simon & Schuster, 1981

Francis Fukuyama, The Great Disruption, Profile, 1999

Sir Francis Galton, Inquiries into Human Faculty and its Development, BiblioLife, 2009

Hannah Gavron, The Captive Wife, Pelican, 1970

Ortega y Gasset, On Love, Meridian, 1957

Patrick Geddes and J Arthur Thomson, The Evolution of Sex, Ulan Press, 2012

George F Gilder, Sexual Suicide, Quadrangle, 1973

Etienne Gilson, Choir of Muses, Sheed & Ward, 1953

Mary Ann Glendon, Rights Talk, Simon & Schuster, 2008

Robert A Glover, No More Mr Nice Guy, Running Press, 2002

Susan Goodier, No Votes for Women, University of Illinois, 2013

Charles Gore, The Philosophy of the Good Life, J M Dent, 1938

F Caroline Graglia, Domestic Tranquillity, Spence, 1998

Germaine Greer, The Female Eunuch, Harper Perennial, 2006 (first published 1970)

Germaine Greer, The Whole Woman, Doubleday, 1994

Jacques Hadamard, The Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field, Princeton University, 1945

Brian Harrison, Separate Spheres, Croom Helm, 1978

Bernd Heinrich, Mind of the Raven, Cliff Street Books, 1999

Alice von Hildebrand, The Privilege of Being a Woman, Catholic University of America Press, 2005

Dave Hill, Men, Phoenix, 1997

Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Oxford University Press, 2008

John A Hobson, The Evolution of Modern Capitalism, Walter Scott, 1901

Karen Horney, Feminine Psychology, W W Norton, 1993

Carol Hymowitz and Michaele Weissman, A History of Women in America, Bantam, 1984

Kay Hymowitz, Manning Up, Basic Books, 2012

Emma Jung, Animus and Anima, Analytical Psychology Club of New York, 1957

Lord Henry Home Kames, Sketches of the History of Man, Liberty Fund, 2007

Emily W Kane, The Gender Trap, NYU Press, 2012

Robert D Kaplan, Warrior Politics, Random House, 2002

Ellen R Klein, Undressing Feminism, Paragon House, 2002

Louise Lacey, Lunaception, Warner, 1976

Christopher Lasch, The Culture of Narcissism, W W Norton, 1991

Bruno Latour, We Have Never Been Modern, Prentice-Hall, 1993

William Edward Hartpole Lecky, History of European Morals, Createspace, 2015

Gertrude Freiin von le Fort, The Eternal Woman, Ignatius Press, 2010

Charles Letourneau, The Evolution of Marriage and of the Family, Walter Scott, 1893

Charles Letourneau, Property: Its Origins and Development, Nabu Press, 2012

Ariel Levy, Female Chauvinist Pigs, Simon & Schuster, 2006

Lucien Levy-Bruhl, How Natives Think, Ravenio Books, 2015

C S Lewis, The Abolition of Man, Geoffrey Bles, 1947

Suzanne Lilar, Aspects of Love in Western Society, Thames and Hudson, 1965

Eugene Linden, Apes, Men and Language, Dutton, 1975

Peter Lloyd, Stand by Your Manhood, Biteback, 2014

John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Cambridge University Press, 1988

Catherine Lumby, Bad Girls, Allen & Unwin, 1997

Neil Lyndon, No More Sex War, Mandarin, 1993

J P McDermott, Why Women and Power Don't Mix, Patriarchic Pub, 1996

Myra Macdonald, Representative Women, Edward Arnold, 1995

Alasdair MacIntyre, Dependent Rational Animals, Duckworth, 1999

Tara McKelvey, One of the Guys, Seal Press, 2007

John Ferguson McLennan, Primitive Marriage, Forgotten Books, 2012

Sir Henry Sumner Maine, Ancient Law, Routledge, 1907

Sir Henry Sumner Maine, Lectures on the Early History of Institutions, Kessinger, 2004

Eugene Marais, The Soul of the Ape, Anthony Blond, 1964

Eugene Marais, The Soul of the White Ant, Createspace, 2015

Lynn Margulis, The Symbiotic Planet, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1998

Jacques Maritain, Science and Wisdom, Geoffrey Bles, 1940

Susan Marshall, Splintered Sisterhood, University of Wisconsin Press, 1997

Otis T Mason, The Origins of Invention, Kessinger, 2006

Guiseppe Mazzini, The Duties of Man, Forgotten Books, 2012

Margaret Mead, Male and Female, Mentor, 1955

Kaitlynn Mendes, Slutwalk, Palgrave Macmillan, 2015

Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Phenomenology of Perception, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1962

John Stuart Mill, On Liberty and On the Subjection of Women, Penguin, 2006

Kate Millett, Sexual Politics, University of Illinois Press, 2000 (first published 1970)

Kate Millett, The Prostitution papers: A Candid Dialogue, Paladin, 1971

Kate Millett, The Basement: Meditations on a Human Sacrifice, Simon & Schuster, 1979.

Elaine Morgan, The Descent of Woman, Stein and Day, 1972

Lewis Henry Morgan, Ancient Society, Adamant Media Corporation, 2004

Desmond Morris, The Naked Ape, Jonathan Cape, 1967

Desmond Morris, The Human Zoo, McGraw-Hill, 1969

Reg Morrison, The Spirit in the Gene, Cornell University, 1999

Steve Moxon, Sex Differences Explained, Createspace, 2016

Steve Moxon, The Woman Racket, Imprint Academic, 2008

Inga Muscio, Cunt, Seal Press, 2002

Paul Nathanson, Legalizing Misandry, McGill-Queens University, 2006

Mariah Burton Nelson, The Stronger Women Get, the More Men Love Football, The Woman's Press, 1996

Louise Michele Newman, White Women's Rights, Oxford University Press, 1999

Kim E Nielsen, Un-American Womanhood, Ohio State University, 2001

Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power, Penguin, 2017

Friedrich Nietzsche, Daybreak, Cambridge University Press, 1997

Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Oxford University Press, 2008

Sean Nixon, Hard Looks, UCL Press, 1996

Tor Norretranders, The User Illusion, Penguin, 1999

Kate O'Beirne, Women Who Make the World Worse, Sentinel, 2005

Dale O'Leary, The Gender Agenda, Vital Issues, 1997

Camille Paglia, Sex, Art and American Culture, Penguin, 1993

Erin Pizzey and Jeff Shapiro, Prone to Violence, Hamlyn, 1982

Erin Pizzey, J R Shackleton and Peter Urwin, Men or Women, Civitas Institute, 2000

Mario Praz, The Romantic Agony, Oxford University Press, 1951

Elie Reclus, Primitive Folk, Hesperides Press, 2006

David Riesman, Individualism Reconsidered, Glencoe Ill. Free Press, 1954

David Riesman and Nathan Glazer, The Lonely Crowd, Yale, 2001

Katie Roiphe, The Morning After, Hamish Hamilton, 1994

Richard Rorty, Contingency and Solidarity, Cambridge University, 1989

Denis de Rougemont, Love in the Western World, Pantheon, 1956

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract, Wordsworth Editions, 1988

John Frederick Rowbotham, The Troubadours and Courts of Love, Swan Sonnenschein, 1899

Bertrand Russell, Mysticism and Logic, Allen and Unwin, 1951

George Santayana, Scepticism and Animal Faith, Dover, 1955

Phyllis Schlafly, Feminist Fantasies, Spence, 2003

Arthur Schopenhauer, On Women, in Parerga and Parilopemena, Cosmo Classics, 2007

Arthur Schopenhauer, On the Basis of Morality, Bobbs-Merrill, 1965

Ronee Schreiber, Righting Feminism, Oxford University Press, 2008

Robert Shapiro, Origins, Heinemann, 1986

Penelope Shuttle & Peter Redgrove, The Wise Wound, Gollancz, 1978

Ronald K Sigel, Intoxication: Life in Pursuit of Artificial Paradise, Simon & Schuster, 1989

Saul Slimansky, Free Will and Illusion, Clarendon Press, 2000

Helen Smith, Men on Strike, Encounter, 2014

William Robertson Smith, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, General Books, 2010

Gary Snow, Antifeminism, Createspace, 2015

Valerie Solanas, S.C.U.M. Manifesto, AK Press, 1996

Christina Hoff Sommers, Who Stole Feminism? Touchstone, 1994

Christina Hoff Sommers, The War Against Boys, Simon & Schuster, 2001

Arianna Stassinopoulos, The Female Woman, Random House, 1974

Edith Stein, Problems of Women's Education, in Writings of Edith Stein, Newman Press, 1956

James Fitzjames Stephen, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, Liberty Fund, 1993

W N Stephens, The Family in Cross-cultural Perspective, Holt, 1963

Richard F Sterba, Introduction to the Psychoanalytic Theory of the Libido, Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing Company, 1942

Merlin Stone, When God Was a Woman, Barnes and Noble, 1990

Galen Strawson, Freedom and Belief, Oxford University, 1986

Ian Suttie, The Origins of Love and Hate, Kegan Paul, 1935

David Thomas, Not Guilty, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1993

W I Thomas, Sex and Society, Biblio Bazaar, 2009

Lionel Tiger and Robin Fox, Men in Groups, Transaction Publishers, 2004

Lionel Tiger, Decline of Males, St Martin's Griffin, 2000

Rollo Tomassi, The Rational Male, Createspace, 2013

Francisco J Varela, Ethical Know-How, Stanford University, 1999

Various authors, Anti-Feminist Writings, Owen Press, 2011

Suzanne Venker and Phyllis Schlafly, The Flipside of Feminism, WND Books, 2011

Esther Vilar, The Manipulated Man, Pinter & Martin, 2008

Norah Vincent, Self-Made Man, Penguin, 2006

Franz de Waal, The Ape and the Sushi Master, Basic Books, 2001

Charles Staniland Wake, The Evolution of Morality, Ulan Press, 2012

Paul Wallace, Agequake, Nicholas Brealey, 1999

Natasha Walter, The New Feminism, Little, Brown, 1998

Otto Weininger, Sex and Character, BiblioLife, 2009

Charles Williams, The Figure of Beatrice, Faber, 1961

E O Wilson, On Human Nature, Penguin, 1978

Naomi Wolf, The Beauty Myth, Chatto & Windus, 1990

Naomi Wolf, Fire with Fire, Chatto & Windus, 1993

Nancy Woloch, Women and the American Experience, McGraw-Hill, 2010

Sir Almroth Wright, The Unexpurgated Case Against Woman Suffrage, Paul B Hoeber, 1913

Robert Wright, The Moral Animal, Pantheon Books, 1994

(Surprisingly enough, on a site I came across, the books by Betty Friedan and Simone de Beauvoir, are listed as 'anti-women books!)

Articles

Roy F Baumeister and Kathleen D Vohs, Sexual Economics: Sex as Female Resource for Social Exchange in Heterosexual Interactions, Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1 November 2004

John Bowlby, The Child's Tie to His Mother, International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 39, 350, 1958

Erik H Erikson, Sex Differences in the Play Configurations of pre-adolescents, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 21, 667, 1951

http://www.academia.edu/2967781/Male_and_Female_Sluts_Shifts_and_stabilities_in_the_regulation_of_sexual_relations_among_young_heterosexual_men_20 13_/

Michael Flood, Male and Female Sluts, academia edu, 2013

http://www.academia.edu/444490/Mens_Movements_1998_/

Michael Flood, Men's Movements, academia edu, 1998

http://www.academia.edu/538000/What_s_Wrong_with_Fathers_Rights_2007_/

Michael Flood, What's Wrong with Father's Rights, academia edu, 2007

http://politicalcritique.org/long-read/2017/gender-as-symbolic-glue-how-gender- became-an-umbrella-term-for-the-rejection-of-the-neoliberal-order/

Weronica Gzrzabalska, Gender as symbolic glue, Political Critique, 13 January 2017

H F Harlow, Love in Infant Monkeys, Scientific American, June 1959

H F Harlow and Robert R Zimmerman, Affectional responses in the infant monkey, Science, 130, 421, 1959

http://www.newspressnow.com/josephine/why-i-ll-never-date-a- feminist/article_c694161d-7e44-5237-9452-4465e82670e0.html/

Dave Hon, Why I'll Never Date a Feminist, Josephine, 7 September 2016

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific- fundamentalist/200908/why-modern-feminism-is-illogical-unnecessary-and-evil/

Satoshi Kanazawa, Why Modern Feminism is illogical, unnecessary and evil, Psychology Today Blog, 2 August 2009

http://www.academia.edu/8317414/Why_Feminism_is_Bad/

Mosir Khan, Why Feminism is Bad, academia edu, n.d.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B02RDDb71N8Xc2EwYmw5T2Z4eDg/edit?pli=1/

Paula Kirby, Sisterhood of the Oppressed, essay posted on internet, 2012

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolutionary- entertainment/201205/giving-feminism-bad-name/

Barry X Kuhle, Giving Feminism a Bad Name, Psychology Today, 28 May 2012

http://time.com/3028827/women-against-feminism-gets-it-right/

Kate Millett, untitled article, Loving Boys, Semiotexte Special, Intervention Series #2, Summer 1980. It was reprinted in Daniel Tsang (Ed), The Age Taboo: Gay Male Sexuality, Power and Consent (Boston: Alyson Publications, 1981)."

Cathy Young, Stop Fem-Splaining, What 'Women Against Feminism' Gets Right, Time, 24 July 2014

G Zilboorg, Masculine and Feminine, Psychiatry, 7, 257, 1944

Blogs and websites

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/awomanstrueplace/info/

One of my three yahoo groups which combines serious thought with a lot of fantasy. Used to be very active but sadly these days activity is on a very occasional basis. New members keep joining but hardly anyone posts!

http://www.angryharry.com/

An interesting site but with a rather hysterical tone and one that is definitely slanted in its approach.

http://theantifeminist.com/

Another rather hysterical site but packed with information and suggestions for further research.

http://www.antifeministtech.info/

A weird but often fascinating site

http://www.avoiceformen.com/

Fairly extreme and hysterical but has some good articles occasionally

http://counterfem2.blogspot.com/

Interesting and informative if a bit thin on content

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/donnaswackyworld/info/

Another of my yahoo groups where I (and occasionally members) sometimes post some of my fantasy stories.

http://eivindberge.blogspot.co.uk/

This site is notorious for a lot of reasons - some good, some bad. Berge is rather scattergun in his approach and at times barking mad. But there is a lot of good stuff on his blog.

https://www.facebook.com/Leftists-Against-Feminism-1623137567938000/

Nice to see a site from a left rather than right-wing perspective that understands how feminism is tragically mistaken at best and oppressive and reactionary at worst. One of the things I find most frustrating as a centre-left-liberal anti-feminist is how almost everyone who rejects feminism seems to identify with the political right.

https://www.facebook.com/malesmatter/

A site created by analogy with Black Lives Matter and with a broadly liberal or leftist orientation.

https://www.youtube.com/user/girlwriteswhat/

Karen Straughan's YouTube channel where she challenges feminism and gender stereotypes.

https://outrageousthinking.wordpress.com/author/girlthinkingoutrageously/

My somewhat defunct blog that I really must update! Too many other calls on my time!

https://goodmenproject.com/

A generally well-meaning site but not very deep in its analysis and thinking

https://heartiste.wordpress.com/

More of an exercise in entertainment rather than serious thought. What little there is consists mainly of right-wing prejudices which are never seriously questioned.

judgybitch.com/

judgybitch.wordpress.com/

www.youtube.com/user/JudgyBitch1/

The three 'judgy bitch' sites contain Janet Bloomfield's various musings on feminism, femininity, men's rights and politics in general. I disagree with a lot of what she says and I certainly don't share her right-wing political views. But she makes some shrewd points at times. Like me, she's a bit of a shock jock and sometimes I feel she writes some of her posts with her tongue firmly in her cheek.

www.julieborowski.com/

Another one with some interesting ideas but too wedded to simplistic right-wing attitudes.

http://www.justiceformenandboys.com/

A strange site; may even be a wind-up. Doesn't seem to have been updated since May 2016. The original site was founded by a right-wing Conservative who decided to create his own anti-feminist political party called Justice for Men and Boys but they didn't do a light in the 2015 General Election. Probably defunct for all I know.

http://kshatriya-anglobitch.blogspot.co.uk/

The Anglo Bitch's site; not sure how serious she is but now and again she's interesting

https://leftleaningantifeminist.wordpress.com/

A thoughtful site with some often unexpected takes on the subject. It's a relief to find one that doesn't start from a right-wing political perspective!

https://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/

The Honest Courtesan's site; again, a bit wacky and thin on content

http://mensrightsboard.blogspot.co.uk/

Strongly right-wing and one-sided in its attitudes

http://www.missmisanthropist.com/

Monica Edwards (calls herself Miss Misanthropist) runs a blog which is, like too many of them, a bit thin on content. I sometimes wonder why it is that so many people who apparently have strong feelings and opinions on subjects don't go into more depth and detail rather than just posting random ramblings.

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/newroles4women/info/

My least active yahoo group where I try to discuss serious anti-feminist issues and policies and ways we could reform the laws, economic structures and society

http://nomoremisandry.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/debunking-feminist-theory-of- sexual.html/

An interesting blog full of intelligent articles

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/the_paradise_islands/info/

Another of my yahoo groups which is of course pure fantasy (though some of my critics have taken it literally!)

https://pjmedia.com/drhelen/

Dr Helen Smith's site with some interesting news items, articles and thoughts though I tend to find her a bit simplistic in some of her attitudes.

https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/

A reddit site based on the film 'The Red Pill' and, like all reddits, simplistic but occasionally comes up with unexpected insights.

http://www.returnofkings.com/

The notorious Roosh V's site. It's full of weirdness, so much so that I wonder if it's a bit of a wind-up. He is of course a bit of a shock jock (which I respect, being a bit like that myself.) But there are some shrewd points at times behind the satire and deliberate provocativeness.

http://mle123.co.uk/tracey/

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Traceystories/info/

Both sites are about the character 'Tracey Smith' created by the English writer Katie Smith. I and many other writers have written 'tribute' stories to Tracey and they are available on those two sites

https://wendymcelroy.com/news.php/

A very unusual woman; a Canadian anarchist and libertarian who has refreshingly honest and sane views on most issues. She writes from a left-wing anti-feminist perspective. She also has her own forum which I've recently joined and seems fairly broad-minded in its approach.

womenagainstfeminism.com/

Full of photos of girls and women holding up placards; again, thin on serious content.
