What Is A 'Natural Body'?

Yes I'm back and absolutely nothing in this world has changed.

I apologise for my unexpected hiatus, I've been preoccupied with my job and stuff.

Anyway, in my absence, I pondered the topic of my next blog post since I realised I had less material than a biodegradable tupperware bin. Then it hit me; why not do one on natural bodies?

So for anyone who doesn't know, which I don't expect you to know since I never told you up to this point, I also do some modeling on the side. And since I have curves, I believe I take part in the #effyourbeautystandards trend that's following the internet. One thing I feel must be gotten across is the idea of a natural body, and what one looks like. Our perception of women and men is often warped by the media's standards of what a perfect person is, or at least a perfect looking person. I wanna help shatter a few of those things. Also I'm gonna focus mainly on women since we experience this firsthand, but I recommend the dudes stick around and try and pick something up from this. It could help you a lot.

The media has brainwashed us into thinking that women should all be these one-note creatures. We all have size 2 dresses, long blonde hair, dashing hazel eyes, and always have a seductive look on our face. They also want to tell you that women are infantile. Most model shootouts involve us sucking on lollipops or playing with stuffed toys. I mean sure, we women can act like adolescents quite a lot but I think that's a bit of a stretch don't ya think? Because of these unrealistic standards, men now develop "trust issues" and look for a woman that fits exactly what a Victoria's Secret magazine convinces them what we look like. They tell us to watch out for stretch marks, watch our weight, and never have any cellulite because that's "imperfect".

The truth is boys, pretty much every woman you'll meet has those. Hell, I have butt cellulite. There's stretch marks on my breasts and shoulders. Am I a freak for that? No. It's my own body, and I have no reason to think that I'm not natural. Girls on average never escape voluptuity. At age 11, we hit puberty and our thighs widen. We begin storing fat in our respective areas. Our bums and breasts grow. Women generally gain weight more than men due to our biological structure and to help us carry a baby. We acquire these tiny imperfections that make us all the cuter :). Here's a pic of Denise Bidot that encapsulates the point and drives it home and tucks it to bed:

I'm sure you've seen this one before. She is posing with the average mannequin. Now for the truth bomb: Denise is an average sized woman. Her dress size is 18, her measurements are 42-32-45, and her weight is 205 lbs. She is also 5'11", taller than the average woman, so she proves that not all tall girls are lean. But beyond all that, Denise is absolutely gorgeous, and she understands that. A while ago, plus size fellow Brit Iskra Lawrence stripped down on a NYC subway train to pep people into the thought that how we look should be appreciated at all times. Denise and Iskra both warn us about how the media is out to get us, destroy us for being comfortable in our own skin.

Here's another complaint of mine. It's the use of girl and woman. Let me set the record straight here, a girl is a female human under the legal age of adulthood and a woman is an adult human female. Get it? Got it? Good, because the media seems to not get that. According to most men, attractive females are called girls. And by attractive I mean the magazine's manipulations of what an attractive female looks like. But when they see overweight or unidealistic females, they're called women. Apparently girls are attractive and women are ugly. Does this apply to boys and men? Oh of course not, males are always attractive and perfect, can't you tell? 

Speaking of which, men may not realise this, but they also should be comfortable in their own skin. They don't have to be these hairless bodybuilders with picky suave haircuts and rustic beards. No, if you're a broad chested slim and hairless guy, be happy with yourself. Unfortunately, it's easier for you than it is for us. Men are usually told to be successful through their talents and not their looks, i.e., having a personality. Women are constantly reduced to their physical appearance, and it prevents them from being taken seriously or recognised for their personality. Honestly, if Megyn Kelly wasn't beautiful, I sincerely doubt conservatives would even host her. I can't say the same about Trump because he's no sight for sore eyes yet people seem to respect him enough to fucking vote for him despite having zero experience (yes I'm still salty about that). 

Also I'd be pretty negligent to not mention the lack of attractive black figures. Haven't you found it odd that a lot of these mainstream models are white? Ethnic diversity is important in eliminating unrealistic standards because limiting sexuality and attractiveness to white people only is just a flagrant example of racism. And no, saying deez black hoes got them phat asses doesn't count as finding non-white women attractive, that just makes you sound like a perverted dickhead. People like Isaiah Mustafa and Naomi Campbell (despite the fact that she's a bloody psychopath) have helped to showcase people of colour's abilities to become fashion figures and idols of what can be considered physically attractive.

There's no right or wrong way to be a woman. And there's certainly no right or wrong body type. If you feel happy being skinny or fat, all power to you. Who knows, you may end up looking like what you consider unattractive. Whether or not you decide to stop placing boundaries on beauty standards because of this will be up to you. 

What To Expect From the Trump Administration

This election and its decision left me hollow, glacial levels of disgust. And I really didn't wanna come here to tell you that. I wanted to come here and celebrate Clinton's what seemed like inevitable victory. But instead, a clear fix in the votes followed by the advantage that the bigots that plague this country had proved otherwise. I can't stop worrying about this, and I know plenty others who can relate with me. But I think it's worth writing a post about it and try to assist you in these dark times.

Trump has made it quite clear how he stands on certain things like foreign policy and nuclear deals. He's a selfish entitled white (or orange) boy, yes boy, who only cares for the benefits of people who are like him, and even then that's a stretch. But what exactly will happen? Is the country bound for doom like we really anticipated? Maybe not. 


First, we have to remember what powers the President really holds. The President is merely an arbitrator for Congress and its several bureaus. We're under complete republican control now, so I can see the threat for miles. However, if we recall correctly, the republicans themselves have disowned Trump. Many of the orange doofus's plans are so batshit crazy that you'd have to be under evolved slime to actually pass them, even if you're republican. He also cannot reverse any executive order made by the Supreme Court or previous presidency. Doing so would be unconstitutional. 

Another thing Trump can't do is wage war. Congress may only do that, and they won't go to war if they understand the catastrophic results that could potentially occur. So Trump's megalomania with wanting to shoot the ones with Russia and North Korea are unlikely to be acquiesced. Besides, to attack Russia he'd first need to disarm the Russian weapons that ISIL and the Taliban are using to fight American troops ;). 

Now I'm sure you're all thinking when I'm gonna address the real problem here: his supporters. For anyone out of the loop, Trump's under-evolved specimens of so-called humanity (big words FTW) have already begun their pogroms on minorities as some sort of indoctrination into the new age. College students have even begun giving "safe zones" with dog counseling and swear to God, colouring books. Imagine that, a room full of adults, many in their 20s, entertaining themselves with things that I'd used when I thought that sparkly pink tennis shoes were the shit. 

Like what the actual fuck. Do you really think this will solve anything? Must we revert to childhood to cope with an election? Oh who am I kidding? This country's president and vice president are undereducated man babies so what difference does it impose? 

It's one thing if this seriously gets under your skin for reasons beyond disappointment. I myself have had patients call me up for appointments wanting me to help them get over emotional stress over Trump's election (I'm a counselor btw). But you see, they're adults, and I treated them as such. When adults face trouble that they can't deal with, they need a shoulder to lean on. And if college students really need some sort of stress relief, let them sit in a room and talk amongst themselves with books to read or art supplies so they can release their feelings onto a canvas. For the record, being an adult isn't the same as just taking it up the arse when you're in emotional turmoil. But Jesus fuck people, show some dignity. 

I can't really provide safety precautions if you're a minority living in a pro-Trump state. However, I'll make it as simple as possible. If you see an immigrant, welcome them to your neighborhood. If you see a refugee, inform them of the benefits they should apply for. If you see a black person, step in if they're challenged for their race. If you see a non-straight, treat them as if they're normal. If you see a woman, make sure she's safe. The main beneficiaries of the Trump administration will be white straight males with a decent size wallet. If you happen to be a privileged male, that's totally fine. Be the change society needs to see. You needn't worry about yourselves, but extend your sympathies with those who do require aid. It's gonna be a long 4 years, let's at least make something count. 

The Gender Science Behind Suicide

Guys, we need to talk. And I'm just letting you know right now that this is gonna be a very touchy subject. If the topic of suicide is far too much for you to handle, I wouldn't recommend continuing. 

So, suicide. Arguably the heaviest topic anyone could ever dip their feet into. But where exactly am I going with this? Well, I'm here to shed some light upon it and approach it a way that no one seems to know how: with grace and reason. You can probably already see where this is going. 

So suicide is one of the major talking points of men's groups and anti-feminists, and it's no longer even a talking point and more so a scare tactic to bully people into agreeing with them. For example, they typically say this "Oh you don't support the MRM? Then you probably enjoy men killing themselves". All they really do is just throw suicide in your face without actually knowing a bloody thing about it. This is a problem for many reasons, the obvious being that suicide, like all tragic events, is not to be used as propaganda for your bullshit campaign. By grossly misrepresenting it, you not only counter produce solutions to this problem, but you also paint a very skewed view of the world.

So what are the suicide facts? Well, it is true that males take up the majority of suicide fatalities whereas females are 3x more likely to attempt it. Now your typical Milo fanbrat would just stop there and/or attach some factually incorrect bollocks and trot away like he won the argument. Well kekaroni stew, I think some actual facts would help bolster your case and allow me to take you seriously, because there's more to it than "drink bleach faggot".

Whilst suicide is massively tragic, there is a bit of a silver lining. These men's groups have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. Yes, men kill themselves more. Here's the thing though, male suicide rates are most common amongst young male adults, to be specific, ages 18-25. After that, the rate of suicide amongst males drops off. Also, most men die of suicide at that point because they're not really gonna die of anything else. So now that we've educated ourselves, I'm sure you can feel yourself getting smarter and starting to feel as if you can tackle the issue better than you originally thought. But wait there's more. For females, suicide rates span across all ages, and that's a very unfortunate fact. This is down to a number of reasons. First let's take a look at their methods. Men's methods of suicide tend to be more lethal, such as shooting/hanging themselves or free falls off houses and buildings, i.e. wanting to end it as quickly as possible. Women use methods like cutting themselves and overdosage, leaving them more likely to survive attempts. Think of it this way, would you cut down a tree faster with a chainsaw or a hatchet? 

Next, let's look at the causes of suicide for each gender. Like I said, young men take up most suicide fatalities. But why though? Isn't your youth supposed to be all giddy and happy? Except, not really. It turns out, most young males who kill themselves are closet homosexuals, which I completely understand. They face high amounts of pressure wanting to be accepted instead of just being accepted for something they can't control. So this really comes down to the patriarchal ideology that men should just bottle up their problems because "showing weakness is for girls". Once we break that notion, male suicide could see the decrease it so yearns for. We women though, we got it a bit different. You see, women have a higher chance of contracting mental illnesses like depression, anxiety, and bipolar disorder. And sad to say, female suicides have actually seen an alarming 16% uprise from this year alone. Their ages didn't discriminate either. Our help is gonna have to come from medical research and psychological assistance. This could also work for males contemplating suicide. Thing is, if you're gonna attach gender to suicide, it'd probably be a woman's issue due to not only our higher attempt rate, but how our primary reason for attempting is the fault of our own limbic system.

Let me get a little personal here. I've attempted suicide 4 times, thought about it far more. I've held razors in my hands intent on slitting my throat, tried OD'ing on over-the-counter pharmaceuticals, ate several times a day even if I wasn't hungry, anything to make sure my life would end. And yes, this was shortly after my attempted rape. Then within a short time span, my grandfather succumbed to stomach cancer. I couldn't take all the pain, and my parents noticed a bit late. I was sent to therapy to help get over my depression. I went to my sessions, took the anti-depressants, followed my therapist's advice, and now, I'm 4 years clean. I cry a bit more than what's good for me but hey, can't have everything can ya?

Suicide shouldn't be territory that we are feared into fighting to end. No amount of MRA whining is gonna help someone, be it a guy or girl, from taking their own lives. MRAs aren't interested in ending male suicide, they just want to trivialise it to continue their obnoxious never ending campaign to silence feminism. Paul Elam, founder of A Voice For Men, says he would rather spend more time silencing feminists than see any kind of societal progress dedicated to helping the men he cares oh so much about. Yet here I am, a feminist, giving an insightful analysis into suicide for both genders to help combat the issue better. There's always a reason to keep on living, let's make sure we can all find it, even when it seems impossible at times.

The Miscalculation of Language Policing

One thing feminists often come under fire for is their supposed practice of language policing. You probably know what I mean. Things like "trigger warnings" and "free speech" and "censorship" get thrown around a lot when the topic is brought up. To be clear, many feminists are against this and do believe that people have the right to say things. But slowly we've kinda backed off from allowing freeze peach (say it out loud) have its own nation sans frontières because of how badly this privilege has been abused; far beyond flexibility in fact. 

So let's talk about language policing for a moment. Its origin comes from feminists wanting to change gender specific terms like calling a woman a female firefighter and instead of firewoman or simply firefighter. Now it's getting to a point where people associate the term with censorship. And to be fully honest this situation is getting ridiculous. So now I wanna take the time to destruct all the stigma that has arisen. 

The first thing I'll touch upon is trigger warnings, and why they're a thing. A trigger warning is not just simply wetting your nappy over being called a noob. No, it's more complicated than that. Trigger warnings are to accommodate for people who have either neurological issues like PTSD so they know what they're getting into. If you're being asked for trigger warnings, it'd be the best to issue them. The real irony here is how offended people get over this whole trigger warning fiasco wouldn't you say? 

The other thing worth noting is entitled white men thinking they have the right to say whatever they want because "muh first amendment rights". Let me tell you something about your first amendment rights, because apparently a British woman who hasn't even lived here long enough to be a citizen understands the US Constitution more than actual American nationals. Your first amendment rights specifically detail that no government institution reserves the authority to eliminate or control the thought processes and profession of ideologies and personal choice of words. This means you can't be arrested because you think trees are ugly. It does not mean you're free to run around saying "gas the Jews" or "all blacks leave Dixieland" or "kill the gays". Which brings me to my biggest example. One thing I've seen get thrown around is a white person's "right" to say the word "nigga", mostly when singing along with rap music. Yeah um, two words. HISTORICAL CONTEXT. A word that was used by white people to demean black people isn't typically something you'd wanna have a right to say unless you're a complete dick. Now sure it's all a matter of perspective, but I wouldn't necessarily be ok with some guy who runs up to me and constantly says things like cunt or bitch all the time like he owns the place. 

Language control, which is its working term, is not a bad thing. It simply means to watch your language when your words would otherwise be inappropriate. Just because you can say something, doesn't mean you should. And that's a very important thing to go home with. It's not a tragic nightmare when you can't say shit piss fuck cunt cocksucker and tits at a wine ceremony. And instead of complaining about people getting "triggered", step back and bit and watch your mouth. 

Why 'Egalitarianism' Makes No Sense As A Movement

I think it's about time I address something that really requires some sort of analysis. When I first became a feminist a year ago, I was a bit oblivious to how many diet civil rights movements had come up. You have the ever so infamous Men's Rights Movement which basically provided an echo chambering circlejerk for traditionalist misogynist scum, and now you have these people called "equalists" or "egalitarians". And to be quite blunt they're rather obnoxious in their crusade for "equality". 

Let me tell you what egalitarianism is. The dictionary definition of the word is the idea that all people of any race, creed, gender, or sexuality deserve equal rights and opportunities. Now I'm not gonna stand here throwing the argumentum ad dictionarium fallacy around the whole time since using a dictionary definition to describe a movement is a bloody stupid idea. What I AM gonna do is talk about how this doesn't work at all as a movement and why it should stop being considered a movement. 

I'll start with the obvious. The most egalitarians you'll find are people discussing gender politics. People like Shoe0nHead, Armoured Skeptic, and Chris Ray Gun identify as egalitarians because they believe that "focusing on the rights of one gender is a stupid thing to do", but let's get real here; they're doing it to stick it to feminism because apparently that hasn't been done enough. This makes no sense since they tend to neglect the issues of women, ethnic minorities, and the LGBT community and primarily coddle the feelings of straight white men. The Amazing Atheist identifies as a "universal human self-determinist" because "you can't be for the rights of one or the other". Did you guys know that TJ blasted a female rape victim and trivialised her tragedy and mocked the Flint water crisis when a black woman spoke up about it? Yeah, some "humanitarian" he turned out to be. The vast majority of TJ's videos are him shitting his nappy over male victims of rape and abuse. I wouldn't have a problem with that if he didn't have such disgusting double standards and wasn't a complete fuckwit. 

There's really no either or situation when it comes to rights. You can be for equal rights and still focus on one side because surprise surprise, not everyone is oppressed equally. Also, how come it's wrong for feminists to do exactly what they set out to do yet a so called gender neutral movement is allowed to focus on one side? If you're an egalitarian, you'd have to incorporate everyone's rights in society without any sort of bias. A feminist egalitarian is a feminist who firmly believes in equal rights for women. A black egalitarian is a black activist who believes in equal rights for black people. I could go on, but hopefully you get where I'm coming from by now. 

You can't just apply egalitarianism to one specific topic. Sure, gender egalitarianism is a thing, but they almost always end up being MRAs trying to not reveal their toxicity. You'd have to be for the rights of ALL people. A real egalitarian is someone like Frederick Douglass, who challenged the idea that those who deserve rights are to be judged by their race or gender, a "no one gets left behind" type of thing. Egalitarianism does not mean to encourage discrimination all around like the internet would have you believe it is. So enough with the whole "I believe in equal rights for all" cop out argument against feminists and actually start acting like who you claim to be. You know, without making it sound like its about letting discrimination go every way it can but to consider the majority's feelings. 

When A Man Loves A Woman['s looks and nothing else]

You know what I like? Hot guys. I like hot guys with cut up torsos, armour abs, firm fanny, and muscular thighs. My husband's got all of that. And I love placing my hand on his hard midsection whilst I'm in his embrace. Wanna know what else he's got? A great heart and a full mind. And that's what really wins me over. 

You know what my husband likes? Hot ladies. He likes hot ladies with well groomed hair, big breasts, curvy midsection, big bum, and thick thighs. I've got all of that. And he loves grabbing my bum and breasts whilst I'm in his embrace. You know what else I've got? A great heart and full mind. And that's what really wins him over.

Now eliminate the whole great heart part. Have you noticed how superficial my husband and I sound? Calm down now, we're all like this. It's safe to assume that every adult has sexually fantasised about people who've appealed to their senses. It's totally normal to have thoughts like that. But you know what isn't normal? Completely stripping someone of their humanity and reducing them to a sexual object. Yeah, we're going there.

Sexual objectification of women is more prevalent than you might think. And in fact, you might be doing it yourself without realising it. Let's start with the obvious question, what is sexual objectification anyway? Sexual objectification, by definition, means to only admire or acknowledge the physical aesthetics of an individual. Women are the primary victims of this, and yes I say victims for reasons I'll elaborate on here. And unfortunately, nobody seems to care how much of a problem it really is. Why is this? Because it reinforces the idea that women are to be seen and not heard. Sexual objectification is actually a root for a lot of the oppression that women go through.

Here's a pretty good example of the sexual objectification of women. 

This right here is an ad for Lynx deodorant, which is what we call Axe in the UK. Axe has been the centre of bountiful criticisms from women and men alike. Not only does Axe encourage men to be macho and obnoxious alpha male garbage, they also portray women like sex objects as shown here. Let's try breaking this down a bit. First, she's pulling a turkey from an oven, reinforcing the whole "women belong in the kitchen" bullshit that stopped being funny after 5th grade. She's also bending over, her bum in clear sight and rather shapely. She has a lustful look on her face that seems to be calling you to her. Nothing about this ad has anything to do with deodorant except for its half arsed tagline "can she make you lose control?". Now let's take a look at a man's ad.

This is an ad featuring David Beckham. It's from his stint with Calvin Klein. Notice anything different here? David is in his underwear standing like a statue in a somewhat dignified manner, like he knows he's got it on lock (which he definitely does btw). He's in an appropriate setting for an underwear ad. His body is not on display, he's displaying his body. The woman in the Lynx ad was being used for a man's gaze. How many men would've actually been enticed to buy Lynx deodorant from seeing that ad? Not many I presume. Their attention would be drawn to the woman in the ad and nothing else. 

The directors of both ads were guys, meaning that men sexually objectify other men as well. Now some might say "but women objectify men's muscles like men objectify women's breasts". True, true. But you don't see women on the street shouting shit like "hey come at me ya fine piece of balls" or "what I wouldn't give to swing you over my head by the dick" at guys do you? When women are flirtatious, they typically offer themselves to you as a subordinate, and media capitalises on that part of our subconscious and exploits it for men's accessibilities. Also, this helps reinforce why women take up the majority of rape victims. Could that be a slippery slope? Possibly. But just because something hasn't happened, doesn't mean it won't. Remember, sexual objectification removes the character of a woman and makes her into a sex object. Rape does not involve respect either. They're cut from the same cloth. 

So what's the answer to this? Sexually objectifying more men is certainly not the way to go. What can instead be done is stop portraying women in media with their physical attributes taking the forefront. It really isn't hard to see women as something other than sexual arbitrators. And ads like the Lynx ad slipping into our everyday culture helps not. This isn't to say you can't appreciate how attractive someone is, I myself get comments on my appearance daily so it's nothing I'm not used to. But just know when to draw the line between aesthetic appreciation and sexual objectification. If you know that, then I'm sure you'll be fine. 

We'll Make Our Own Equality With Blackjack and....er, Feminists

So here's an interesting topic. Feminism vs Equality. Now I know what you're all thinking: "HERP A DERP FEMANITZ WANT SPECIAL PRIVALIJIZ". And I just want to say, no. I'm not here to beat y'all over the head with any fear mongering and propaganda. I'm here to talk about how feminism became antonymous with equality, or at least has evolved past its typical meaning. Buckle up, this may be a bumpy ride.

The philosophy that feminism has taken up nowadays is establishing and protecting women's rights and reducing male dominance. The reason for the change is because of a crazy revelation we'd come to by the turn of the modern era: why should we be equal to men when they're the ones still in power? Confusing isn't it? That's where I come in.

When you're talking equality, you realise that everything we'd been working toward is to do what men did. Think about it, equal pay to men, equal job opportunities to men, it's all gaining rights by men's standards, and as a result men have been dictating how we as feminists and women ought to be if we want to cut in on their action. Feminists never wanted to be men in order to gain access to men's rights, we want to be accepted for who we are as women and not to be held back for our gender. How was that hard to comprehend? I guess it's easy to represent something badly when you're in complete control and don't like something. 

Point being, women are not men, and it's not anti-feminist to admit that. But that doesn't mean we're useless or incompetent. With men constantly changing the playing field it's getting harder and harder for us to gain the respect we yearn for. I deem this unacceptable and many other feminists agree with me on that. So instead of playing by their rules, we're making some of our own. 

We're not gonna stand here and get fucked over day by day because men want to act like children by making some rubbish objective that's impossible to complete at the last minute when they see that they might have met their match. We're creating our own standards on how to gain rights. It's one thing to have rights, it's totally another to have those rights enforced, and that's another problem. There's this falsehood going around that women have more rights. It's only true on an abstract scale. I do plan on elaborating more on this in another blog post, possibly the next one. But I think I'll leave that on a cliffhanger. Aren't I just the worst? ;)

Feminists have taken things into their own hands because it's the only effective method we have left. Then we have the brilliance of "neutrality". Neutrality is this bogus method that employs calling people as humans rather than the group they belong to. You see people like The Amazing Atheist and Armoured Skeptic doing this shit a lot. The main problem I have with the idea of neutrality is the fact that it allows the privileged party to continue being themselves. They've really got nothing to lose. By letting the privileged party define equality how they see it, they pretty much can continue to get away with their discrimination and cry reverse racism/sexism when it happens to them. 

We shouldn't have to acquire our right to freedom by kissing arse. It's time we as feminists, blacktivists, gay rights activists, anyone who demands the rights they deserve stop appeasing to what the aggressors want. You don't gain freedom by bending to your master's will, we will break free and take what we're worth. United we stand.

Why You Always Lyin' (about rape)

A few months ago, Laci Green, a popular sex ed extraordinaire and feminist, made a video where she explains false rape claims and how they are to be dealt with. Honestly, I felt she did a pretty good job talking about the matter. The internet on the other hand doesn't agree with me. The video was blasted with dislikes, with ignorant detractors, blatant misogynists, rape apologists, and just the typical anti-feminist crowd took to the comments just to berate the poor woman for simply explaining the truth about the situation. A "meme" also started called #LaciGreenRapedMe, where we're supposed to make a mockery of a real problem of rape victims not being believed. The reactions to the video infuriated me to no end, and I felt more compelled to give my own piece to this.

So how did false rape claims get started in the first place? False rape claims had arisen during times of segregation and slavery. Many times, black slaves were falsely accused to raping a woman out of nowhere. And as a result, they were lynched, flogged, and even shot. So false rape claims actually got their kicks by being a form a racism. However, at that time, a majority of rapes were black women, who were also slaves. So whilst these men's wives were having their purity stripped from them, they themselves were being framed for crimes they never did. Did social connotations for false rape claims ever evolve? Not a bloody chance.

Nowadays, false rape claims are blown WAY out of proportion by men's groups as another part of their war against women. Let me get this out of the way right now. I do not condone lying about rape, and plenty of feminists don't either. We feel it is insulting to the real rape victims who've been cheated by the legal system. But the biggest problem I have with this situation is that men's groups treat false rape claims like they're the worst thing ever when that's so obviously not the case. This position has attacked feminists many times as a way to make us seem evil or incredulous. Here's the thing though, feminists don't neglect to shift all focus on false rape claims because we want to take the piss out of A Voice for Men and Return of Kings. We don't shift focus to it because false rape claims are already taken very seriously to start with. A false claim is classified as perjury, and anyone who does this can be hit with a hefty fine or incarceration. Referring to my first blog post, actual rapists can sometimes walk free despite being completely responsible for the crime. As the old saying goes, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Now let's get into the meat of things. We're gonna look at some facts. The amount of false rape claims that are actually reported stand at a low 2%-8%. You are more likely to be raped than you are to be framed for it. But what the statistics don't show you are that reported rape cases that receive no evidence are deemed as false. I remember reading months ago about an Ohio sheriff eliminating rape kits because "most of the rapes we got were false". He had no real evidence other than anecdotal bollocks. Some might bring up retroactive rape claims, where a woman has sex with a guy, regrets it, and then says he raped her. What they don't realise is that when someone is raped, let's go with a woman here, the incident is very hard to prove. Evidence of such is not easy to get because the perpetrator is often someone they know and they'll often blackmail the victim into staying quiet about it. This situation is far more likely to happen than a false rape claim, so it's more humane to believe the victim. 

But what about the effects of a false rape accusation, you might ask? Do I not care about some guy's life being ruined? Let's not count anything out. If you're framed for something you didn't do, you have my undivided sympathy. But wait. Most accused men have a recorded history of being aggressive towards women, physically or sexually. So these things aren't easy to combat on the spot. Sure, that doesn't necessarily mean it's okay to lie about something he did, but my point still stands. And really, asking for proof can pretty much apply to any crime. And if we're gonna say that everything must be a hoax because evidence isn't brought to the forefront almost immediately then that defeats the purpose of rape investigations in the first place. Here's a tip: if the accused is coming off more casual than the accuser, then there's a pretty big chance the rape isn't false. 

So what can be done about it? Firstly, do not treat this as though it's worse than actually getting raped. It really isn't, and it makes you look like an arsehole. What we should do is pay close attention and look at both sides. When enough has been shown to draw a decent conclusion, then we can start talking about whether or not the situation was dealt with fairly. 

Hm, I'm really having trouble ending this on a good note. Oh well, bye. 

You Can't Hit Me, I'm A Feminist!

I've seen way too many people talk about this, and the kind of answers I get from it discomfort me to say the least. What could I possibly be referring to here, you may ask? It's the "hitting girls" argument. The fact that it's even an argument should tell you how bad it's gotten. 

It usually goes like this. You bring up the fact that you're a feminist. You talk about how you think women should have the same rights, freedoms, opportunities, and accessibilities as men. Granted, feminism has somewhat evolved past meaning that and has now become a liberation movement, but I digress. The man you're telling this to will sometimes say this little nugget: "But does that mean we're allowed to hit you?"

Yep, that's how it goes. They don't care about shit like equal pay or body autonomy. The only thing they had on their mind was whether or not they were allowed to punch a girl in the face and not see repercussions.

This bothers me for several reasons. Me being a woman takes priority there. But no, there's more to it. Let's start off with how from day one you're generally told to keep your hands to yourself. That hitting people isn't a nice thing to do. You wouldn't want to discuss that so badly unless you were this pugnacious jerk-off who can't feel good unless he's inflicted physical damage upon another person. And I say "he" because it's mostly guys who act this way and bring this thing up. Yeah sure, not all men and what not but that still doesn't change the fact that there's more negatives than positives. 

If you're trying to break the stereotype that men are violent, always jumping to the "equality means we can hit girls" bollocks is not the way to go. In fact, you're inadvertently perpetuating violence against women. No, not violence against people, against women. There's a reason why violence against women is treated as seriously as it is. Now you're probably thinking "what about violence against men?" Here's the difference. Assaults are almost always carried out by men, be the victim male or female. When the victim is male, the murder is hardly ever attributed to his gender, but rather being in the wrong place at the wrong time. When the victim is female, the motives usually involve her being female. Women are perceived to be weak and easy to attack. Not helping is how men are taught to defend themselves and women are told that whatever they're wearing or how late they stay out is attributing to their risk of being attacked. In other words, she was asking for it. 

The problem is that men are already hitting us, we kinda want you to stop. 

I actually stumbled upon a picture that does state my point pretty well. 

You might ask "then what's the point of women's self-defence classes?" Well just because you can protect yourself doesn't mean you want to get hit every second of your life. A soldier knows how to use guns but they still don't want to use them all the time. And even then that's beside the point. In fact, scratch that, it adds on to our point. You're pretty much saying women should just deal with men being violent. You know, that thing you claim "not all men are"?

There's nothing cool or funny about women and feminists getting "rekt" because some alpha male douchebag punched her in the face. I don't mean to be cliched here but if any female you care about had the shit beat out of her, would you run up to her and say "oh but if you were a man who was beat up by women everyone would be happy". Whilst we're on that subject, the main reason why women hitting men isn't treated like it's a pandemic is because 9/10 recorded cases of women hitting men were done so in self-defence. Another thing, why do men need reassurance that they can beat up girls? Insecurity perhaps, or maybe it's just toxic masculinity at play. 

Men don't need to have the right to hit a woman. Do as your mum told you, and keep your hands to yourself. 

Has Motherhood Lost Its Way?

Everyone loves their mummy (to the Americans in my audience, I'm saying mommy), no matter how old we are, no matter how tough we are. Mothers just have that love that is unmatched. I love my mum very much, she has inspired me to do many things, and that pursuing your dream is for sure worth it. But one frighteningly disturbing thing I'm seeing is many stories and videos of mothers dissenting into villainy. Beating their children, killing them sometimes, and many misogynists are using this as an opportunity to diminish the role of motherhood in family life and exonerate fathers as pretty much gods. This could lead to the reversion of a 1950's nuclear family, but worse.

Now to be clear, I'm not against fathers. I know and love my father all the same. But I refuse to make acceptable the idea that mothers are always powerless. Now of course a married couple is much more fit to raise children. One is the loneliest number you'll ever do, but two is also the loneliest number since one. Music references aside, a married couple isn't always an ideal one now is it? If it was, domestic abuse wouldn't be a thing. And single motherhood is pretty much looked at like it's the worst thing ever. Single mothers are constantly bedeviled for raising a child or two on their own, even if she's doing a fine job at it. Single fathers on the other hand, are praised and respected for their bravery. But why though? Patriarchy. Of fucking course it's patriarchy. 

Single mothers are pretty much hard evidence a wage gap exists. Women get lower wages and thereby live in working class areas, giving the impression that they're not fit to parent. But that's just money. Finances don't dictate a child friendly environment, seeing as most abusive parents turn out to be desert driller rich. 

What's the answer to how single mothers should be able to raise kids to be well groomed adults? According to Jeb Bush, they just need to "get married". In essence, the same type of bullshit that MGTOWers think like is endorsed by a Senator of the Republican party in the United States Government. Go figure. 

Now that I live in America, I want to make sure that when the time comes that I'll be a parent, my parenting skills won't have to be attributed to my marital status. Not just for me, but for any woman who is no longer married because of whatever the circumstance. Single mothers can be just as useful as married mothers. 

Back to abusive parents, there's this idea floating around that states the majority of child abusers are women. Except, NOPE. Around 64% of abusive parents are fathers, and 27% are mothers. Granted the number of abusive mothers is still high, but that still doesn't change the fact that them being the majority is a lie. Let's educate ourselves a bit. 

First thing, feminists dedicate a lot of their time to rehabilitating mothers who've fallen from grace. One of our main goals is restore motherhood to the pinnacle of which it can be. How many MRAs have spent time going after abusive fathers? None that I've seen. Paul Elam? Nope. Roosh V? Not happening. Stefan Molyneux? In your dreams. They're all too busy trying to make rape legal, or at least convince men that women always want it. These men's groups cry day in and day out about divorces being biased towards women, which I'll get to, yet never once do anything about it. That would of course mean being an actual activist. Another thing that goes unaccounted for is inequalities that exist with parenting methods. A father who spanks his children is usually seen as just a normal parent dishing out an effective discipline method. A mother spanking her children is seen as a child beating monster who should have her parenting licence revoked. Essentially, strict parenting is ok for dads but terrible for mums. This is mostly down to stereotypes that dictate that a man is allowed to use force because he's big and strong and macho and what not. A woman must be delicate and all sunshine and flowers. A record also states that most mothers who abuse their children are often abused by their husbands as well, so the torment just carries on from one recipient to the next. 

Guess what men? It all comes back to you. 

Next I wanna tell you about parental rights. Men's groups would like to have you believe that fathers are just in eternal damnation because of them gosh darn custody laws being "unfavourable". This is not true at all. But first, is it fair that a man who ditches the mother of his child is lauded by his peers for "dodging a bullet" but a woman who gets an abortion is deemed a murderer? Irrelevant your opinion on abortion, ditching your "baby mama" is never a good thing to do. It shows you never cared about the woman you slept with and instead just want to score with as many women your ego demands you to. Men who abandon their families deserve to pay the child support they apparently become slaves to. And if you refuse to pay or try to make it look like you're the victim, you're a fucking coward. There are legitimate reasons for abortion, like a rape baby. There is no excuse for just up and leaving a woman who's pregnant with your child. Now, custody laws may LOOK like they favour mums, when in reality it's just an illusion. Mums are more likely to win child custody due to the amount of time they spend with the kids. However, this is mainly down to the fact that men often don't want to have custody and instead prefer to sign away their parental rights. 50% of men who actually fight to gain custody will receive it. And this also accounts for men who have good lawyers and aren't really fit to parent but still have an arsewagon of cash to burn. In other words, it's still up a man's word either way. 

So has motherhood become toxic, destructive, and a shell of what it used to be? Not quite. Our young women are being told all the time that they're not that important, and their lives belong to their husbands upon cutting the cake. By coming together and telling young women the importance of motherhood, we can end negative stigma around single mothers and create a safer environment for mothers of any kind. 

Misandry: Sirius Bizness

You ever been hanging out with your friends or browsing the web on various social networks or those meme pages and you come across the occasional sexist joke that demeans women in some way? You know what I'm talking about here, the women in the kitchen jokes, the make me a sandwich rubbish, and the classic "a woman with 2 black eyes has been told twice". It just grinds your gears till the machinery requires maintenance don't it? 

When you call these people out, they'll more than likely retort with the following: 

"Relax, we're just joking"
"You girls take everything so seriously"
"I don't actually think that you know"
"Lighten up"

But by god if your brittle minded feminine arse dares to make a joke at men's expense, you're greeted with such:

"NOT ALL MEN ARE GROSS DRINKERS"
"OH BUT IF IT WERE THE OTHER WAY AROUND YOU'D BE ANGRY"
"REVERSE SEXISM"
"THIS IS WHY I HATE WOMEN"

Don't say you've never seen such. Because I know you have.

Reverse sexism is pretty much another anti-feminist campaign to further powder MRAs' diapers and safeguard their precious fee-fees. The term just has no real meaning anymore, not like it ever did. It's just another deterrent of feminism so these "alpha male" douchebags can continue their misogynistic frat boy ways. 

I distinctly remember deliberately trolling r/MensRights on Reddit for posting a meme about male rape. I was sent multiple death threats, got called a cunt an ample amount of times, and overall got the reaction I expected. Hilariously enough, there were plenty of memes and posts that were in earnest trying to preach that only women are to blame for being raped or abused. The reverse sexism card stems from the "double standards of humour". For example, take a photo like this:

You'd probably see this captioned by some meninist saying "Now watch how much outrage there'd be if it said no women allowed". 

You know what? You're right. I wouldn't like it. Why? Because you've taken so many jabs at misogyny and treated it like a joke, said things like "she's just begging to get raped with those clothes on", "women get paid less cuz they suck at working", "make me a sandwich cunt", and god knows what else. And now suddenly here you are demanding that we be "equal" all because you're the one on the receiving end of discrimination. That doesn't make you funny, it makes you a spineless little dipshit who can't take his lumps when they're beginning to bud. 

PSA to all jokesters out there: if you're white, don't go around verbally bitch slapping women, minorities, and gays with your rude humour and then suddenly decide you don't find that kind of comedy funny when the tables turn. That's just disrespectful. I myself can handle some darker humour every now and then, hell I've even gotten some laughs out of some rape jokes. But one thing I will not stand for is if humour on an offenciveness basis only goes one way. 

Now I could conclude it here, but there's one more thing I want to showcase. This was found on Twitter when #masculinitysofragile was making the rounds:

Yes people. Your eyes aren't playing tricks on you. These macho crass men here are legit in sexually oriental hell over the colour of a bloody iPhone model. Ignoring that you could just simply not buy the iPhone in that particular colour, I don't think homosexuality is the biggest of your troubles. No if you're pissing over something as venial as this, now would be an appropriate time to renounce your manliness permit. You're clearly not cut out for it. 

Stay humble my friends.

White Rapist Privilege

Seems like I'm gonna make quite the entrance. 

Hello general public and beyond. I am Kristal Colt, and welcome to my blog Age of Queens. It is a feminist blog that will talk about, well, feminism.

To start myself off, I want to address a rather pressing issue that really gets under my skin the more I hear about it. Today I'm talking about the Brock Turner situation. Sure I may be beating a dead horse here, but something new has developed that really makes everything a whole lot worse.

A story got out recently about another college athlete named Cory Batey who was just sentenced to 15 years in jail for the rape of an unconscious woman. Now his sentencing is well deserved, and we consider this a victory. But there's one thing about this situation that I can't get past: Cory Batey is black.

Now how is it Cory Batey, a black male college athlete, gets a proper jail sentence for raping an unconscious woman, yet Brock Turner, a white male college athlete, only gets 3 months for doing the same exact thing? You guessed it: white privilege. 

Let me take a quick moment to break down what white privilege is before the mongrels of the Men's Rights Movement jump down my throat. White privilege doesn't mean that all whites will live perfect lives, that's a foolish thought. What white privilege means is whatever adversity a white individual, usually a male, encounters, that adversity won't be attributed to his skin colour. Brock is a shining example of this. He's got plenty of money (his dunce parents do anyway), is a white kid who goes to a rather prestigious university, and has athletic abilities. Brock is almost never referred to as a rapist or sexual predator, he is always called "Stanford swimmer", and that bothers me. It shows me that the media is so grossly biased in this current era that it will whitewash any immoral actions of anyone who fits the proverbial American Dream. I don't give a single fuck about Brock's future or life. He's a deplorable, vile, idiotic, and undeserving sludge ball who committed a heinous act that he doesn't regret in the least bit. No amount of high school photos is gonna phase me on that. He's a criminal, not a star athlete. 

I think it's time I get personal for a second. In 2009, I met a guy who was a bit like Brock Turner, at least when it comes to be innocent looking. We became a couple that year and dated until 2011. The breakup was a little tragic, so to say. One year later in 2012, I encountered him again on one summer night in Rothwell (I'm from Leeds, UK for the record) and he claimed I didn't know what I was missing. When I told him to get over the fact that we'd broken up, he said it wasn't up to me. Then it happened. He grabbed me and pulled me to him. I tried breaking free but he threw me to the ground with such force that I almost got knocked out. Then he picked me up by my throat and threw me into a wall. I screamed for help, no one heard me. Then he unzipped his jeans, then he went for mine. That's when I changed the game. I went for my taser and used it on him until he went lights out, foaming out the mouth even. The moment was so intense for me that I completely burst into tears, reassuring myself the whole walk home that I had to do it. 

I thought it was over, then a lawsuit came my way-the bastard was suing for me for assault. We counter-sued on the count that I was saving my own life. Instead going to prison, he only received 2 years probation and community service. My parents and I felt so cheated. To this day I still feel incredibly disappointed in the justice system for failing me. And it's even more frustrating that it still happens in 2016. Have we not evolved? Why do we still treat rape like it's just another form of sex? 

Both mine and Emily Doe's rapists are white men. White men who didn't care for what they'd done to innocent women and acted as if they weren't that bad of people. White men who never received the proper consequences for their actions. We as women need to rise up and take to ourselves to make sure rapists get theirs. 93% of rapists in America alone are white males, and only 3% of rapists ever see jail time. We cannot afford to have more Brock Turners. It doesn't matter if he is white or black, rich or poor. You do the crime, you do the time.