2020 vision

A few of you seemed rather to like the captioned pictures of attractive TV journalists talking about female supremacist politics a few weeks back.  So, ever eager to please I’ve done a few more.  But I’m not going to post them yet, you’ll just have to wait.  Just think of its as tease and denial, OK? You enjoy that, I expect. Pervert.

However, I thought perhaps while we’re waiting for that we could hear a few words from The Lady Herself.  So here, without further blather, is an excerpt from a speech that the FemSuprem candidate will be making during the 2020 US presidential campaign.

Why should men who aren’t submissive support female
OK, let me tell you a little
story.  A true story. Around about 1905, this French passenger ship got wrecked on a remote
Pacific island. There were 32 women and 20 men who survived, so they set
up a camp and waited for rescue.  But
this island was way off the usual routes so no help came.
And they got a little society going, organised on
traditional male grounds, obviously. This was 1905. Women didn’t even have the
vote!  So the guys just decided guys should be in charge.  They probably didn’t even think about it.  But stuff went wrong. The men
started fighting over power, and one was killed and seven others ran off.  Then two of the men who were left fought over
a woman and the winner raped her.  So
far, so normal for thousands of years of history, right? 
But the women rose up and they threw the men out.  And they built a big fence of stakes and they
got on with doing what women do: growing food, looking after one another, making their lives better. You
know?  And the men did what men do: they
fought, they destroyed stuff and eventually they were scavenging around
half-naked for raw berries and nuts and worms out there in the forest.
So, every so often, a man would come to the gate of the
women’s village and beg to be allowed back in. 
And the first few times the women just said no.  But then they held a council and they
discussed it – as women, do, respectfully of one another’s opinions, while the
men were settling their differences on the rest of the island with clubs – and
they agreed to let the men back in on one condition.
Here’s the condition: any man who came back in, could do so
only as a slave.
Yeah: a slave.  And I
guess you all think that’s terrible and a horrible thing to happen.  Slavery’s not a nice word and I suppose it’s
not a very nice thing when you’re a slave either.  But it was better than grubbing up roots and
berries and being constantly afraid of being beaten up or raped by the other
men, you see.  So, over time, one by one,
all the men came back into the village. As slaves. 
And they lived and they got enough to eat – and, yeah, they
weren’t free any more. So they didn’t have the freedom to rape people because
they couldn’t control their sexuality or dig up the crops before they were ripe
because they couldn’t control their gluttony – or the freedom to fight each
other for power.  And maybe they had to
take a whipping occasionally, when they deserved it and I guess that can’t have
been fun. But it was better than starving. 
It worked, see?

But… that’s not the end of the story. All good things have
to come to an end and after about 15 years, finally a ship visited the
island.  And things could have been fine,
but the captain of the ship saw a guy tied to the whipping post and decided it
was too weird for him and he took everyone off at gunpoint. And after that, we
don’t really know what happened to the castaways.  I’d like to think some of them carried on in
female-led households back in France. 
Because women were a lot freer after the first world war, see, so maybe
that could have been possible. But it’s hard to stand against the culture.
But here’s the thing. 20 men landed on that island. Two were
killed by other men early on, and one died of natural causes about 1915.  The other 17 came home. What do you think
would have happened to them if they hadn’t been shipwrecked?  They’d have joined the army, of course, like
all French men in 1914.  And if they were
lucky they’d have spent four years in the trenches, wading through mud
constantly, permanently infested with lice and always terrified of a shell or a
sniper taking off the top of their head, or ripping out half their guts in a
split second.  They’d have been compelled
by other men to stand up above the trench and run towards the enemy’s lines,
scrabbling over barbed wire as machine guns cut through their bodies and those
of their comrades.  If they were unlucky
they’d have been gassed, shot, bombed, shelled and bayonetted while trying to
do the same thing back, killing men on the orders of other men.  And if they somehow survived the enemy but
refused to try to kill him, they’d have been shot.  By men on their own side.
And my question to you is this: were the guys on the island
worse off?  They wore collars and chains
and they didn’t get to decide much for themselves, it’s true. They got an
occasional beating when they deserved it, and I’ve heard from time to time some
of the women got a bit frisky too and liked to humiliate them a bit.  But if it’s that or the trenches of World War I – which would you choose?
I sometimes wonder whether those men were honest with
themselves after they came home. 
Whether when anyone ever asked them what they did in the Great War, how
they survived, they’d say ‘Oh – I was enslaved in a matriarchal society.  I had a pretty sore bottom from time to time,
but we didn’t have any wars.” Because that would have been the truth. But I
expect they didn’t.  Back then, most men
would have thought of subordination to women as the worst thing in the world.  They’d just had four years of unimaginable
horror in the trenches but somehow going over a woman’s knee was an intolerable
thought.  Go figure.
And that’s my story. 
And that’s why I say to men: look at the world you have.  This is your world: the world you men
made.  You’ve had thousands of years in
charge and… well, look at it.  You want
to make it better?  You’ve tried
political campaigns to put different men in charge and you’ve tried revolutions
to put a whole bunch of different men in charge and you’ve had wars – boy, have
you had wars! – to see if killing people might help and hey: nothing
works!  You’re still scrabbling around
for nuts and berries, fighting each other, living like animals.   

Well, I’m offering you the same deal as those
women on the island did. We’ll open the gate, if that’s the choice you decide
to make.

What have you got to lose? Your freedom? Give me a
break.  Your freedom is the problem.  And if you’re honest with yourselves, you’ll
admit that. And you’ll support us in this election.  And if we win, you don’t have to worry about
what happens next, because we’ll be in charge. Do you have to be submissive to
want that? Or do you just have to be intelligent enough to recognise that you
need to give yourself a break and put someone else in charge?
I’m Anne Hathaway. 
I’m a female supremacist and I want your vote on November 3rd.  

0 thoughts on “2020 vision”

  1. This is great! What a campaign. It's a bit funny that imaginary female supremacy tends to justify itself in the same way as monarchies do, as responsible authority. Reactionary femdom, anyone?

  2. really admire President Hathaway's commitment to ensuring every male gets an elementary school level education.

  3. "Reactionary femdom, anyone?"

    Yes please. For some reason, in the UK politicians talk about 'the Nanny State' as if that's a bad thing. Personally, I don't see the problem.

  4. Yes indeed. In fact, I have a caption coming in a few weeks' time in which she explains her commitment to boys gettng a proper, traditional school experience. To prepare them for the life they'll lead as 'adults' you know. Back to basics.

  5. What do you mean, 'start voting' Mr A? Assuming you are indeed a 'Mr', you'll only need to vote once. Then you won't have to bother your silly little head about it ever again. She'll see to that.

  6. voting leaves males depressed, scared and confused and can lead to all manner of problems such as impotence and bed wetting.
    Strong female leadership is needed to rescue the damsel in distress who is the 21st century male.

  7. Oh, I don't mind voting, as long as there's Someone there to tell me who to vote for. Once I put my cross against the wrong name, and I had to go and do it again. It was a bit embarassing, I suppose, but it's not the first time I've had to be slapped in public and most people there saw the funny side.

  8. i think voting for Hathaway might be the best option for macho chauvinist males too at least Anne has the power to reign in the more extreme wing of the fem supreme party, using castration for only the highest offences rather than the wide range of crimes the extremist thisnk it's apt for.

    and her stance on the veil for males being left in the hands of wives and mothers rather than a federal mandate is much more reasonable

  9. You'd stand in Her presence, Femsup? I have to say, as a devout follower of the divine Anne, that that strikes me as rather impertinent.

  10. In my opinion, for what it's worth (not much, I'm told), men shouldn't have to take the veil. I mean, the Goddess has given them bodies to be displayed, for the pleasure or ridicule of women, so why not go skimpy? You're right, though, if a wife or any other responsible female wants her male's face covered up – whether with a veil or just a handy sack – that's entirely a matter for her alone.

  11. Or his face covered by her bottom that's a matter for Her. You are right I meant a kneeling ovation. Not to be confused with ovulation or ululation. Or urination. Oh dear stuck in a bit of a rut. Femsup

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Verified by MonsterInsights