Just another WordPress.com site

My message board deleted by Proboards.

with 3 comments

Well, after achieving the dizzy heights of eleven members my proboards forum was deleted today.

I’ve no idea why – there’s just a message where my site was saying “this account has been suspended in accordance with rule 25a” which basically means they can bin your forum without even having to give any reason.

Written by worthlessfem

July 12, 2011 at 10:39 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Dominance and abuse

with one comment

Dominance and Abuse



I’m writing this post because on one of my three yahoo groups there’s been a lively discussion going on between one of my female members and some of the men. Basically she’s pretty much advocating what’s called the “loving SM” or “consensual submission” type of approach while some of the doms on there are accusing her of being a feminist out to wreck the group.

Anyone who wants to read the messages in full can see them on the yahoo group, “A Woman’s True Place.” The url is


Here’s the basic issue. She says that being a female submissive doesn’t mean you have to be a doormat and that being a male dominant doesn’t give you the right to treat girls like shit.

Now as it happens I’ve got some pretty wild and extreme views on what a man can or can’t do to a girl. I’ve openly posted my opinion that if a female gets raped it’s always her fault. I’d go so far as to say that a girl never has the “right” to refuse a man sex if he wants to fuck her. I’d also say that if she does refuse and gets “raped” by him then she is the one who should be punished and not him. He has done nothing wrong and the only one who’s behaved badly is the girl!

Frankly, I think rape should be legalised completely; it’s a victimless crime, after all.

I also believe that “domestic violence” should be legalised as well because a husband, partner or boyfriend does IMO have the right to impose discipline upon a girl who’s behaving badly, disobediently, disrespectfully and so on. “Domestic violence” in those sort of circumstances isn’t “abuse;” it’s just well-deserved domestic discipline.

Does that mean that a man can’t respect a girl? No, it doesn’t.

Does it mean that he shouldn’t respect her? No, it doesn’t.

Does it mean that he should treat her with contempt? No, it doesn’t.

Does it mean she’s a piece of shit? No, it doesn’t.

Personally I very much enjoy verbal abuse, physical degradation and a bit of handy violence.

That’s me and it doesn’t mean it has to be the same for everyone.

For what it’s worth my husband does love and respect me.

I’m very glad that he does.

Is it wrong for a dom to treat a sub as if she’s nothing?

I don’t think it’s right or wrong in the abstract; it all depends on the individual and their relationship together.

For some subs, being used like a piece of meat is heaven on earth.

For others, it’s hell.

I’m in between; I can go with the flow and enjoy either situation.

Anyway, I’d be very interested to hear other people’s thoughts, especially the gentlemen’s opinions.

In the meantime here’s a list of my sites:













Written by worthlessfem

June 29, 2011 at 11:57 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Are women human?

with 2 comments

Are women human?

Are women human? At first sight this looks like a strange question even to ask. But I’ll ask it just the same because the answer isn’t anywhere NEAR as obvious as you might think.

Remember that article I posted by scientists? The latest research shows that females are MORE closely related to apes than MEN are.

Weird, right?

So are we human or are we apes?

Point 1 – the evidence of science – seems to suggest that we’re either NOT human or at least not AS human as Men. Girls are closer genetically to apes than men are and are therefore at least LESS human than men; if not purely animal and not human at all.

Point 2 – A girl in Florida shot herself in the head with a .44 and survived with barely a scratch on her. If a man had done that his brains would be splattered all over the place! It just goes to show that expressions like “empty headed slut” or “brainless bimbo” are the literal TRUTH and NOT just figures of speech. So if girls can shoot themselves in the head and still live there must be only a minute amount of brain matter inside their skulls

Point 3 – Women’s brains are smaller than men – on average they have around 98% fewer brain cells than men. (No wonder that stupid bitch in Florida didn’t manage to kill herself!)

Point 4 – The Bible tells us that girls don’t even have souls. Here’s the evidence:

Landover Baptist Creation Scientist, Dr. Jonathan Edwards, announced findings related to his research into the female soul early this week. “The absence of either salvation or condemnation for women finds extensive support in the Word of God.” He reported. “Jesus said that the sole reason God created women in the first place was to provide company and service to men (1 Corinthians 11:9), God determined that men would be lonely living alone, so he created women purely to keep men company and serve their needs (Genesis 2:18-22). Women are therefore completely subordinate to men (1 Corinthians 11:3). It stands to reason, though, that once men enter the Kingdom of Heaven, they will be one with God, and will no longer be lonely and in need of mortal companionship. Thus, the reason behind having women will no longer exist. Women, like the members of the animal kingdom, will fall by the wayside.”

Dr. Edwards went on to say that, “once men reunite with their maker, they will no longer be burdened with the care of women. After all, women were inferior creations from the start. Women are fond of self-indulgence (Isaiah 32:9-11). They are silly and easily led into error (2 Timothy 3:6). They are subtle and deceitful (Proverbs 7:10; Ecclesiastes 7:26). They are zealous in promoting superstition and idolatry (Jeremiah 7:18; Ezekiel 13:17, 23). And they are active in instigating to iniquity (Numbers 31:15-16; 1 Kings 21:25; Nehemiah 13:26). It was the inherent weakness of women that led them to be deceived by Satan (Genesis 3:1-6; 2 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Timothy 2:14). Consequently, women were cursed from the start (Genesis 3:16). There is simply no room in heaven for such flawed and inadequate beings.”

 So women are genetically closer to apes, have smaller brains than men, have a smaller parietal cortex (associated with visual and spatial perception and capacity for reasoning and abstract thought), and they don’t even have souls according to the Bible.

 All round, it looks pretty much as if us girls AREN’T human but just a slightly higher form of ape.

 I’ve known for years that we were INFERIOR to men but now it looks very much as if we aren’t even HUMAN BEINGS!

Written by worthlessfem

June 5, 2011 at 1:48 am

Posted in Uncategorized

Am I a sick bitch?

with one comment

Several poeple on about five boards have suggested that I AM a sick bitch. One said that (unlike another member who’d just dissed me because I’d suggested that women needed to show some responsibility as well as men) I wasn’t a rational or likable person.

My response was that the woman in question might well be likable but she wasn’t rational.

As for the bloke who’d made the comment, I told him straight that he was NEITHER of those things.

It’s stranee, actually; since I’ve started posting on forums devoted to rape I’ve found that men are generally MORE hostile to what I say than women; women who HAVEN’T been raped more hostile to me than those who HAVE been; and that the neo-Nazi “progressive” types are more hostile to me than those with liberal, tolerant, and compassionate attitudes towards the world.

I’ve actually asked on these boards if people think I AM a sick bitch and MOST people, mercifully, have answered “no.”

Look, I’m only too well aware of how much my rape 12 years ago when I was 18 years old messed up my life.

That doesn’t define me any more than any single aspect of a person’s life defines them.

When I post on that topic I get big responses, many of them thoughtful, intelligent and thought-provoking; many of them stupid, bigoted and personally abusive.

I’ve had a person who otherwise has been thoruughly decent towards me ask if I’ve ever been raped.

Christ, I’ve mentioned it about a dozen or more times on two threads on hte board in question!

Do people not READ what I’ve said or do they just come out with their prejudices and narrow-minded ignroance?

I’m sick to death of it all and beginning to wish I’d never started this fucking blog or joined the other boards!

Is it worth fighting for tolerance, compassion, reason and all the rest of the liberal values I believe in?

Or should I just give up and let the bullies win?

Fuck it, I WON’T; but by God I’m depressed and angry as hell with some people.

Linkefaschismus ist echt scheiss! (left-wing fascism is pure shit!)

Written by worthlessfem

April 20, 2011 at 1:47 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Is egoism rational?

with one comment

Is egoism rational?

Again and again you hear people saying, in slightly lees or more extreme ways, “it’s up to ME what I do. I don’t have ANY responsibility for my actions or any DUTY to consider the feelings of others.”

There are lots of MORAL arguments you can use against that idea but for now I’m just going to concentrate on the RATIONAL ones against it.

If you assume that everyone has some kind of innate RIGHT to do whatever the hell they please then you’ve got NO sort of RATIONAL basis for objecting to ANYTHING that anyone else does. Fine, if you want to live in a cave or a desert island where there are no other inhabitants.

If you live in a community, or even a family, though, it’s different. You simply HAVE to consider OTHERS in terms of your own behaviour. The rapist has the SAME “right” to rape you as YOU have to dress or behave sexually provocatively. There’s no more basis for objecting to HIM raping you than there is for him objecting to you behaving like a slut. The thief has the SAME “right” to take your money as you have to hold on to it.

If you tamper with the brakes on a car and cause an accident or even a fatality, hey, that’s cool, says the egoist. I was just doing what I FELT like doing and nobody has any right to blame ME for what happened.

If you feel like murdering your children, well, why not? You just happened to FEEL that way at the time and no one can BLAME you for what you did.

This is what happens when you follow egoism to its logical concluskion. It produces total nonsense. Philosophers call what I’m doing a “reductio ad absurdum” argument because it shows that the logical CONSEQUENCES of an argument are – well, bullshit.

Even in “game theory” it’s been proved conclusively that altruism is a BETTER strategy than egoism. In real life if the only person you give a damn about is yourself, why the hell should anyone else give a damn about YOU? Your protestations and complaints about the behaviour of other people are just hypocritical bullshit if you’re an egoist.

Of course most egoists ARE hypocrites. They want special treatment so that THEY can be selfish and uncaring but they expect OTHERS to consider THEM.

Why the hell SHOULD we? If they think they can treat other people like shit,, why should they be surprised if sometimes they get paid back in their own coin?

But that’s egoism for you. Not only self-centred nastiness but total hypocrisy as well.

Altruism rocks; egoism sucks!

Written by worthlessfem

April 20, 2011 at 1:35 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Why is “rape” different?

with one comment

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 friened 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 jaia. 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!

Anywya, 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, boyfrieneds 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 and 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 happend. Slo, 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 peoople 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 our of 10 they will be attractive women of child-bearing 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 or 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 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!

Written by worthlessfem

April 17, 2011 at 4:38 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Are women who report being “raped” evil?

with one comment

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.

Doi 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.

Written by worthlessfem

April 15, 2011 at 1:05 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Male empowerment and female disempowerment

leave a comment »

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?

From one point of view, 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’s a lot 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 (i) that right from them would deal a huge (i) 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 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 “Born with a cunt” 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 (i) 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 (i) 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 (see why I don;t use Twitter!( so I’ll write a follow-up for other measures and areas.

Just breaking the financial power 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 rightg would transform the situation overnight.

Men would be re-empowered and women effectivley disempowered simply by these simple but effective measurfes!

Written by worthlessfem

April 14, 2011 at 1:00 am

Posted in Uncategorized

A quick update to “My new economic system”

with one comment

Just a quick update on this one.


I didn;’t focus in my previous postt about the specific changes that need to be made in the status of men and women.

I’ll do that in the post I’m presently wrting called “Male Empowerment and female disempowerment..W”

That’s a process I believe in and believe ought to happen and economics is one side of it.


Watch this space!


Written by worthlessfem

April 13, 2011 at 3:01 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

A new economic system

leave a comment »

Till around fifteen hundred years ago, the world pretty much had only two basic types of economy., There were the rich countries like Rome and China and the poor ones who got by on their own resources.

Then, when the Roman Empire, at least in the West, collapsed in 476 AD, the old economic system that had worked for thousands of years fell apart.  A new system arose that became known as feudalism. Basically that meant that the king and the powerful nobles owned the land and bossed the people about pretty much as they felt like it.

Eventually people started to want more control over their own lives. They were helped by the fact that from the 1300s onwards wealthy Italian and German bankers began to ignore the prohibition on lending at interest that had lasted for nearly a thousand years and had given the Jews a near-monopoly on money lending. It laid the foundations of what was later to be called financial capitalism, though it didn’t really have a name when it started up.

Feudalism was pretty much shot to bits by the Black Death and then you started to see the beginnings of small businesses and small trade unions called guilds or gilds. They were not like modern trade unions, but they had probably more power than their descendants ever exercised. The Catholic Church also exercised a lot of power and held a lot of money and property – no change there, then!

The system at this period of transition was unstable and broke the balance between the people, the government and the economy. Before long England and France and Spain all became big powers, England always the richest but for a while the French and Spanish both punching at roughly equal weight otherwise. Anyway, after about two hundred years of fighting, the Spanish lost out and it was a two-horse race between England and France. England won, mainly because she was richer and because she started to create more modern industry and technology earlier. During this period, the system called mercantilism, with a protectionist economy and lots of trade, was the dominant one.

What’s all this history stuff got to do with a new economic system, I hear you asking? The girl’s l;ost her marbles,  you reckon? Wait and see. It’ll all come clear in the end. Waffling always has been one of my biggest problems.

Well, out of what’s become known as the Industrial Revolution, England managed to end up top dog. Our little island produced the biggest and most powerful empire the world’s ever seen! Still, it came at a massive price. The conditions of the people got worse outside the industrial belt. Up north they lived like lords; in London and the south they lived in abject poverty. Visitors from overseas used to pay tourist trips to the London slums and say with amazement that they’d never seen such poverty anywhere else in the world. Even visitors from Asia and Africa said that about us!

Well, industrialisation, backed up by financial capitalism, led to what became known as the capitalist system. The capitalists went around ripping everyone off like the lords had done before them and then people started to look at alternatives.

The trouble is, for a long time there were only two of them on offer. One was some form of what became known as socialism, which ranged from the Communism of Karl Marx to the dotty lemonade-fuelled fantasies of nutters like Fourier.

Meanwhile, in the United States, the northern parts had slowly started to industrialise and were beginning to catch up with Britain. In Europe, the Germans were beginning to become a nation and right from the start Bismarck deicded to adopt measures which his political opponents called socialist, though nowadays they’d be looked at as more social democrat rather than socailist proper.

From the 1870s to the First World War, various radical movements nearly managed to break the two-party system in the US. The Populists and then the Progressives dominated the agenda of the country till the First World War put pretty much everything else on hold. The Russian Revolution followed and ww had capitalism, social democracy, socialism and communism as well as a new breed of conservatives.

Now everything is pretty much falling apart, especially in the West. The Third World is rising up but it’s so backward in the way it organises itself that it’s going to be a total shambles if they do get to be top dogs. China and India are just Third World countries with money; they’re not remotely capable of playing the same role that the USA, Britajn, France, Spain and Soviet Union played for quite a while.

And everybody thinks the only answers are capitalism or socialism!

I think they’re BOTH evil, inefficient and unstable and we should get rid of BOHT of them!

OK, fine, you say. Tell me what you’d put in their place.

The answer is a system known as distributism.

I’ll briefly explain what it is and how it’s different from either capitalism or socialism.

Socialism, basically, whether its the milder “social democratic” version or the more extreme Marxist type, means the ocntrol of the State over every aspect of life. That’s morally wrong, paralyses initiative, benefits only bureaucracy, and oppresses the people.

Capitalism just wants to make money and doesn’t care how it does it. There is no sort of moral thinking or behaviour about it and it simply looks on you either as a cog in its money-making machine or as a consumer to be exploited.

Both systems are similar to and have all the disadvantages of slavery without any of the corresponding advantages it had (Not many, I know, but compared with what’s replaced it slavery was almost benevolent.)

So what’s this distributism, then? And how does it differ from capitalism and socialism?

Essentially socialists want to concentrate all power in the hands of the state.

Capitalists want to concentrate the money in the hands of a few large corporations.

Distributism doesn’t want to do either of those things. It believes in the widest possible distribution of ownership and it wants, instead of either an overmighty state or a few fat cat corporations lording it over us, to have a society of small private owners and small property owners. Less is more, in the distributist vision, first put forward explicitly by Hilaire Belloc in 1911 in his brilliant book “The Servile State,” where he showed claerly that both socialism and capitalism were two equally mistaken and evil philosophies and that the distributist system was the only rational alternative.

Imagine – instead of having to shop at Tesco or Walmart you have a nation of MILLIONS of small stores, selling you goods at fair prices, rather than being ripped off by the supermarkets.

Instead of the criminal drug companies and health insurance companies you have proper healthcare.

Instead of having to choose between being exploited by the corporations or by the state you can choose not to be exploited or oppressed by either of them!

Wouldn’t it be a wonderful world!

Written by worthlessfem

April 12, 2011 at 7:33 pm

Posted in Uncategorized