Previous Chapter Back to Content & Review of this story Display the whole story in new window (text only) Previous Story Back to List of Newest Stories Next Story Back to BDSM Library Home

Review This Story || Author: Worthlessfem

Born with a cunt: An apology for being female

Chapter 3

Born with a cunt


By worthlessfem


Chapter Three


The New Economic Reforms


The fifth and final part of the raft of new measures aimed against divorcees and single girls was to replace the old Job Centres with a new Office for the Direction of Female Labour. By this stage of the game almost all the good jobs were held by men and women were virtually stuck in an employment ghetto of low paid, menial and degrading work. Even the less able men were, simply by virtue of their gender, able to get better jobs and at much higher money. Unlike a few years earlier, male unemployment was now a conscious career choice rather than an economic necessity. Because the government intended to exploit women to the maximum possible degree it was possible for them to be extremely generous towards males. It soon became common for women to go out to work and men to lead a life of leisure, supported by a combination of state benefits and female earnings.


In essence women, except for married women, who were subject to different rules and whose main responsibility was towards their husband, were now the main breadwinners in society. It was women who did most of the work though the most interesting and financially rewarding jobs were almost exclusively in the hands of men, The ODFL became a means of directing them towards the unpleasant types of work that men no longer wanted to do. The crucial aspect of it was that girls who were single or divorced but did not live with their family had no choice if they lost their jobs except to go to the ODFL and accept whatever work they were offered.


As men started to become choosier about their own employment, the type of jobs the girls were placed into became steadily more unpleasant and degrading. It made no difference however reluctant she was to take it. The Office gave her no choice at all in the matter and it was made a criminal offence to refuse any job they offered her, no matter how unpleasant it might be. Girls who thought their lives were hard already soon found them becoming much worse, More and more of them began to be shunted into jobs which they’d never imagined doing even in their worst nightmares.


The first of what you might call the non-traditional occupations for females to be handed over to the ODFL was working in the sewers. It was a very unpleasant, degrading and in some ways even dangerous job but before long only women were doing it. In a funny sort of way the fact that the hostel girls already lived in filth and squalor seemed to make them ideally suited to it.


The whole area of employment law was radically reformed and improved. The excellent start that was made by turning over the entire earnings and possessions of a wife or daughter to the husband or father was followed up by legislation designed to affect single women, divorcees and widows as well. The government began by reforming the pension schemes, not only the state pension but also employers’ pension schemes and private pension policies.


Under the terms of the Pensions Reform Act, men were eligible to receive all three types of pension from the age of 40. They could retire then and enjoy full pension rights immediately. They did not have to make any payments to qualify, all pension schemes for men being funded entirely on a non-contributory basis. By contrast, the age of retirement for females was raised to 75, and they were not allowed to benefit from their pension until they reached the age of 80. In addition the new law required them to make regular contributions to achieve ‘entitlement’ even for the state scheme, and of course this was even truer of company and private pension funds, where the scale of payments demanded from them was much higher.

Men were entered into the pension scheme from the moment they began working, whereas women had to have worked for five years before their contributions were even allowed to count towards their entitlement. In effect, women workers were paying the whole cost of funding pensions for the men, who would retire 35 years earlier than they could and benefit from the contributions of the females immediately while the girls had to wait another five years before they could even have the efforts of their own contributions paid to them.


The government passed two Employment Acts, the first one being far less radical than the second. Under the terms of the first Act, girls either had to go to a job that their father or legal guardian approved of (and often found for her) or else go to the Office for the Direction of Female Labour and take whatever job they offered her. She had no right to find a job herself or to leave one without the consent of her father or legal guardian, unless of course the girl was sacked. Depending on the terms of employment she would work in different patterns but it was now laid down in law that a MINIMUM working day for females was 12 hours a day and it was ‘recommended’ that their ‘normal working week’ should be all seven days. That meant most girls now had a MINIMUM 84-hour working week. Men enjoyed a MAXIMUM working day of six hours and a ‘recommended’ working week of 25 hours. Overtime was also made compulsory for girls but was purely voluntary for men.


Work breaks for men and women were also different. Men got two half-hour breaks and a lunch break of two hours. Girls got two ten minute breaks and a twenty minute lunch break. Men got five weeks holiday a year when they started working, rising by an extra week for every year they worked while girls only had one day off a year for the first five years of their working life, rising by a day for every five years she worked. A girl who started work at 16 and retired at 75 would have earned a holiday entitlement of 12 days a year by the time she retired. Odd numbers were always rounded down with girls and up with men. A man who began work at 16 and retired at 40 would have earned 29 weeks a year holiday entitlement by the time he retired.


Men were also entitled to six weeks sick pay and year and most of them jumped at the chance to take their whole entitlement no matter whether or not they were ill! Girls, by contrast, were not paid if they were ill until they had been in full-time employment for at least ten years. Even then they were only entitled to one week a year off. Maternity pay was abolished altogether and a pregnant woman knew that she would suffer financially if she was working. Mothers birthed their child and were expected to be back at work by the next day at the latest, and preferably on the same day as their delivery. Fathers of course were given three months paternity leave on full pay following the child’s birth.


In most ways married women who worked were better off, both financially and in terms of their lifestyle than single or divorced girls. They might have to put up with a demanding husband and son, be permanently pregnant during their fertile years, also knowing that every penny the wife earned from her job would go straight to her husband. He would give her what he considered to be a reasonable sum of money for her expenses and that was that. Even so at least she had a home, a stable life and did not live in filth and squalor as so many single and divorced women now did. Marriage, which had been out of fashion for so many years, began to be seen by most girls as the best option to secure their future.


Even though she knew she’d almost certainly have to work as well as being a wife and mother, on the whole it was far preferable. Almost anything was better than being one of the single and divorced women who lived in hostels and worked at filthy jobs. Even being married to a man who was unfaithful, abusive and violent was better than being a ‘hostel girl.’


Hostel girls began to be seen as a group to be despised rather than pitied. It was consistently put about by the state media and the media outlets that supported Justice – which within a couple of years had become almost all media – that the girls were entirely to blame for their plight. The official line was that they were lazy, irresponsible and feckless and the only possible method of dealing with them was through tough measures, direction of labour and the hostel system. It was also implied that they were sexually promiscuous and had played a considerable part in what the government and pro-Justice media organs referred to as ‘the assault on public morals’ which had, they claimed, been responsible for ‘the decline in standards of behaviour and the increase in crime.’

By contrast, the media portrayed the lot of a married woman as a happy one. In soap operas, dramas and even documentaries every effort was made to paint their life as idyllic. It became unacceptable to have male villains even in crime dramas. Only female villains could now be shown on TV, at the cinema or written about in books and magazines, preferably feminist lesbians, whores or adulteresses.


The success of placing hostel girls as sewage workers – soon known as ‘Sewer Sluts’ – led to a radical rethink about many other kinds of occupation where it was always hard to find enough workers willing to undertake the job. Since hostel girls were in such a desperate situation – the only real alternatives for them were to risk the harsh regimes of the new prisons for women or to be literally homeless on the streets, trying to beg a few pence from largely unsympathetic passers-by or to prostitute themselves – they had little choice but to accept the slightly better option of working at the jobs nobody wanted.


Before long the ‘sewer sluts’ had been joined by ‘garbage girls’ who collected rubbish, ‘lumberjills’ who were responsible for cutting down or otherwise maintaining trees and ‘stonebreaking slags’ who were employed in heavy construction work. The government also re-opened the coal mines and staffed them entirely with hostel girls, known as ‘coalmining cunts.’

Because of the total disregard for health and safety regulations when the girls were being employed, it was now profitable to mine coal again. Soon thousands of hostel girls found themselves working in the re-opened mines and yet another non-traditional area of employment became an exclusively female occupation.


Since these changes applied only to hostel girls, who were already little more than despised pariahs from mainstream society, almost no opposition was raised about the lack of health and safety regulations in their jobs or the low pay they received for their work. Most people had now become conditioned by the relentless propaganda from the government and media into believing that hostel girls deserved everything they got and that at least they were now performing useful roles in society rather than being the parasitic, dirty layabouts that the media always portrayed them as.


Encouraged by the success of its assault on employment protection laws in the case of hostel girls, the government gradually moved towards making reforms in other areas of work. Hotel work, catering services and shop work were the next areas to be tackled. The hotel industry was relatively easy to reform as so many staff working in it were from overseas and were therefore less likely to know or demand their legal rights or object when they were ruthlessly stripped away from them.


A new Hospitality Act laid down a minimum working schedule for female employees in hotels, hostels, bed and breakfast accommodation and similar establishments of 15 hours a day, 7 days a week. Male staff had a recommended maximum working day of 5 hours a day, 5 days a week. Not many people protested about the changes and the female workers had little choice except to agree to the new terms and conditions of their employment.


For the first time the Act also made a direct assault on the principle of equal pay by laying down that a man working in the hospitality industry must always be paid at least double the amount that a girl would receive. Again, nobody really seemed to take much notice of this provision or to make any serious objections. The new Food Industry and Catering Act extended the same working conditions and pay structure across that area of work as well. Again, there was hardly any opposition to the reforms.


Shop work was the next area to be brought under the new regulations. Small shops were given two choices. One was to open 24 hours a day and hiring female staff on either part-time contracts at a pound an hour or full-time ones at one pound fifty an hour. If they chose the part-time option the girls only worked a maximum 10-hour day for six days a week. If they opted for full-time workers they had a minimum 13-hour day for seven days a week. All girls could be instantly dismissed without notice and were not allowed to benefit from holiday or sick pay or to enter into any private or company pension scheme.


Large shops were able to open 24 hours a day and hire female staff on the same contracts but with different terms and conditions. Part-time workers had to put in a maximum 12-hour day for seven days a week; full-time ones a minimum 14-hour day for seven days a week. All girls faced the threat of instant dismissal but were allowed to contribute to private or company pension schemes. They were also entitled to one day a year’s holiday but not sick pay. They received one pound fifty an hour basic for part-time work and full-time workers got two pounds an hour.


The next area to be reformed was office work. Again, new hours were set, with men working a standard 25-hour working week, 5 days a week. Girls by contrast had to work a standard 84 hour week, 7 days a week. They got two days a year holiday and one day’s sick pay. They were paid two pounds an hour basic for part-time work and full-time workers received two pounds fifty an hour. Once again they were subject to instant dismissal. Office workers were also allowed to contribute to private or company pension schemes though few girls could afford to make the payments. Even if they did they were not allowed to benefit from their contributions until they reached the age of 75, only five years earlier than the state pension age. Male office workers paid no tax on any of their pension entitlements whereas girls were taxed at the 90% rate on their own pension. A few brave women protested but it did them no good. The government had them trapped in a cycle of dependence and servitude.


More new laws followed, which gradually stripped away the few remaining legal protections for women workers. It was now expressly forbidden for a woman, unless she owned her own business, to hire female staff at a level higher than ‘supervisory.’  Existing female executives, senior managers and junior managers were left alone for the time being unless they had already been demoted by their husbands or fallen foul of the repossession laws and were now hostel girls. If they had become hostel girls they were immediately dismissed from their jobs with no compensation and forced to undertake the new line of work found for them by the ODFL.


It was ‘recommended’ that in future only men should be appointed to ‘any position requiring responsibility and judgement.’ This recommendation created a new ‘glass ceiling’ for women which it was now impossible for them to cross. Any woman who worked, which was now the majority of them, knew that she could never be promoted beyond at best supervisory level. More probably assistant or junior supervisor would be the highest level she could reasonably aspire towards.


In itself the removal of opportunities for women to get higher paid jobs meant that their general income fell dramatically. However, under growing pressure from employers, the government felt strong enough to replace the existing Equal Opportunities Act and equal pay legislation with a new law that laid down a ‘recommendation’ that in future a woman’s pay should be ‘no higher than half that of a man.’ It also ‘recommended’ that overtime pay for women should be ‘no higher than a quarter that of a man, or half her normal basic wage, whichever figure is the lower.’


Men, living on a generous state National Income Guarantee of two hundred pounds a week, only worked if they wanted to and almost invariably at the higher paid jobs. Even a male doing low paid work would still be paid far more than a woman doing the same job. The majority of women were by now subject to direction of labour and their pay and conditions became worse and worse as time went on, employers took advantage of them and new and ever stricter legal and economic reforms were introduced.


Girls beginning work or starting a new job had no choice but to sign the new Contracts of Employment. These laid down wage scales and working conditions that were far inferior to those previously enjoyed. Women in existing jobs were more and more frequently being offered the choice of ‘renegotiating’ their contracts to a new and less favourable one or of being instantly dismissed and referred to the ODFL to find them work. It was not long before the majority of female workers had signed the newly ‘renegotiated’ contacts at distinctly inferior terms.


The next area to be reformed was the taxation system. In the most radical of his Budgets during the first term in office of the Justice Party, the Chancellor transformed the whole system of taxation on the basis of gender. It was now laid down that men would pay no more than 5% in income tax whereas women could be made to pay up to 90% of their earnings in tax. Hostel girls were even worse off, being liable to pay 100% in tax.

Four tax bands were set for a woman worker, the lowest at 30%, the second lowest at 50%, the middle band of 70% and a higher tax band of 90%. Most office girls paid 30%, most shop workers 50%, most hospitality workers 70% and most unskilled workers 90%.


Not only was it a radically redistributive taxation package, but what was even more brilliantly fair about it was that the LESS the woman earned the HIGHER the rate of tax she paid!


The government next tackled the ‘sexual harassment’ laws. It was now legal for company workplaces to display pictures of naked women, for male staff to make sexually suggestive remarks to female workers, for them to proposition them for sex and even grope and fondle them without fear of any legal consequences. Work life for women became even more of an ordeal following the passage of these new laws. 


As well as direct legislation, companies were encouraged under ‘policy directives’ to require ‘corroboration’ of any action taken by a female employee from a male superior, no matter how trivial the act was. It became increasingly standard practice to refer to women as ‘girls,’ both at the workplace and in general. The media only showed working women in subordinate positions and often, particularly in sitcoms, portrayed them as incompetent bimbos and made fun of them generally.


Companies also drew up ‘Codes of Conduct’ and ‘Dress Codes’ for their female staff which restricted their freedom and, to a large extent, humiliated and/or sexualised them. It soon became not just legal but standard practice for female employees to be spanked, subjected to public verbal humiliation, and even required them to humiliate themselves by routinely suggesting their own incompetence, stupidity and laziness to customers and other staff. The Dress Code more or less forced the girls to dress like sluts and of course severe punishments were imposed for the slightest infraction of the code.


Now the government began its assault on the only groups of women who had not yet been brought under subjection – wealthy business owners, widows and divorcees. They began by bringing in a new Morality Act which forced divorced women to ‘render an account’ of their ‘financial circumstances’ and the ‘origin’ of their ‘assets.’ Men known as ‘assessors’ were then given full access to their bank accounts, property deeds and any other income or assets that the divorcees had. They were instructed by the government to find as many discrepancies as possible in the accounts of the women and also to look into the possibility of ‘restitution’ for any ‘wrongfully acquired’ assets that the women had.


Many divorcees had been legally parted from their husbands for twenty years. It was difficult for them to produce the necessary ‘documentation’ to show that they ‘acquired their assets through honest means.’ In a test case, the Supreme Court ruled that ‘any money, property or other assets acquired by a wife during the course of a divorce had clearly not been acquired honestly but were the proceeds of extortion and therefore the result of criminal activity.’ The Court also laid down that any assets which had been ‘wrongfully acquired by a wife as a result of an unfair divorce settlement’ must be immediately handed back to ‘their lawful owner the husband or his designated heirs in their entirety.’ They added ‘in the event of a divorce ONLY the husband may claim the marital home, all moneys and other assets of the marriage. The wife has NO claim upon the marital estate and will receive NOTHING in any divorce settlement.’

Overnight almost all divorcees became homeless and were stripped of everything they had once owned. To make matters worse the Court also laid down that any alimony payments they had been given over the years were ‘extortion’ and ‘fraudulently obtained money.’ Divorcees were required to repay the entire balance of ‘payments obtained under false pretences’ to the husband or his ‘designated heirs’ with immediate effect.


Of course divorced women howled in protest but could do nothing about it. They were made to hand over everything to their husbands or ‘designated heirs.’ Women who had been living high on the hog were suddenly reduced to abject poverty. Many became ‘hostel girls’ or were sent to prison.


To make matters even worse for them, the Inland Revenue’s ‘Fair Female Tax Assessment Department’ also declared that such sums must be repaid with interest, a rate of 1000% interest per year being placed upon any back alimony payments. All but the wealthiest divorcees were completely unable to pay these punitive rates and were promptly arrested for ‘tax evasion.’ They were offered three choices; to become hostel girls, get sent to prison or work in one of the state brothels. Most divorcees became hostel girls.


The next step was to attack the previously protected status of widows. This was done through a combination of three different measures. The first was the new legal requirement for a widow to be able to produce a ‘certificate of mental competence’ issued by two psychiatrists. Naturally men who wanted to get their hands on the often extensive and valuable assets of widows struck corrupt bargains with the doctors and persuaded them, either in return for a small fee or a share in the proceeds, to sign the alternative certificate, a ‘certificate of mental incompetence.’ This dreaded document laid down that the widow was incapable of handling her financial affairs and that all her money, property and other assets were to be ‘held in trust’ on her behalf by ‘responsible legal guardians’ with total control over everything she had formerly owned.      


Of course hardly any widows were able to get the ‘certificate of mental competence.’ Instead they were nearly all issued with a ‘certificate of mental incompetence’ and their lives fell apart overnight. They found the new ‘responsible legal guardians’ taking over their ‘financial affairs.’ Their new role was nothing more than a device by which they could, quite legally, take over the assets of the women in their ‘care’ without any form of redress or punishment. Widows were stripped of everything they had owned and their assets became the absolute property of their new ‘responsible legal guardians.’ It was a legal licence to plunder the widows’ assets.


Even if the women were lucky enough to have been issued with one of the ‘certificates of mental competence,’ the second measure hit hard at them.

The government levied death duties on them, retrospectively of course, at a rate of 1000% interest. Few could afford to pay the duties and were declared bankrupt and their property and assets forfeited to the state.

The third measure only affected a minority of girls. Basically the law now said that in every case where a husband died before his wife the police should launch a criminal investigation to examine the possibility that he had been murdered by his wife. Only about a hundred women were caught by this particular law but all of them were executed, their assets confiscated and handed over to the nearest male relative or appropriated by the state.


Widows who were declared ‘mentally incompetent’ found themselves in a desperate situation. Their guardian had a choice of actions. The first and most common was to send them to one of the new mental hospitals for women. These places became as dreaded as the prisons and I will write more about them in another chapter. The second was to ‘transfer’ all their assets into the ownership of the guardian and declare the widow bankrupt. She would then be classed as an ‘economic parasite’ and her destiny would be to become a hostel girl. 


The government had pretty well wiped out the problem of widows. Now it turned its attention to the remaining businesswomen who had somehow managed to survive all the legal and financial restrictions and disadvantages under which they laboured.


Again, they used a combination of the tax system, legislation explicitly discriminating against female businesses, a media campaign and social pressure. They began by wiping out small female-owned businesses at a stroke by requiring ‘all enterprises or business concerns where a female is in charge or owns the company’ to obtain a ‘licence to trade’ from the Department of Business and a ‘licence to operate’ from the local council. The ‘licence to trade’ cost a million pounds and the ‘licence to operate’ cost half a million. All but the wealthiest businesswomen simply could not afford to pay the licences and were forced either to close or to sell their businesses to men for whatever they could get. If they closed down they were accused of becoming ‘voluntarily unemployed’ and ‘economic parasitism.’ The penalties for that were severe, ranging from a minimum of three years in prison with hard labour up to a possible sentence of thirty years imprisonment with hard labour.


On the other hand, if she chose to sell (as most small businesswomen did) she was also handicapped and fleeced at every turn. Naturally she could only sell her business to a man, and a male purchaser would give her as little for the concern as he could get away with. Her business would be ‘valued’ by an ‘independent assessor’ appointed by the local council and of course he would always value it at as low a rate as possible. The man would normally consult with the assessor beforehand to arrange the sum at which the business would be valued by him. She was then faced with the choice of selling her business to the male purchaser for a derisory sum or being forced out of business through her inability to pay for the licence.


Even if she sold her business at a loss, which was almost invariably the case under the new regulations, the Inland Revenue and local council had not finished with her. Whatever money she had left over from the ‘sale’ was immediately ‘assessed’ for ‘financial irregularities,’ ‘undeclared assets,’ ‘late payment’ and ‘underestimated income.’ The woman would then be presented with a bill for ‘non-payment of taxes’ and required to pay it instantly on pain of seven years imprisonment with hard labour. The Inland Revenue generally set a figure of 50% of the residue and the local council of 30%. The woman, even though she had sold her business at a loss, was left with 20% of the sale price.


After her assets had been stripped from her, unless she was lucky enough to still own a home or have other sources of income or capital, in which case she might be able to survive and lead an independent life although in greatly reduced circumstances, she was generally offered the choice by the government of becoming a hostel girl or of working for the new owner of her own business.

Most girls reluctantly began working for the new owners, even though it was always at a greatly reduced income and with far worse working conditions, because by now most women would do almost anything rather than become one of the dreaded and despised hostel girls.


The next step was to target that minority of women who still owned large businesses or were independently wealthy. Stage one was to raise their insurance premiums, requiring women who owned businesses to pay 100% more on their premiums than men. That was not enough in itself to stop many of them from trading, but it certainly added hugely to their costs.


The next stage was the Equitable Taxation Act which reduced Corporation Tax and Capital Gains Tax for male-owned businesses to 1% but increased the rate on female-owned ones to 40%. That drove most of the women who owned middle-sized businesses into folding up. Of course the measure was made retrospective and they were asked to pay 5 years back taxes at the new higher rate while men got a rebate for having ‘overpaid’ on their Corporation and Capital Gains Taxes. Once again many of them had little choice except to sell their companies, often with a turnover of millions, to men at a rate fixed by the ‘independent assessor,’ which would be invariably far lower than the true worth of the business. They were then once more made to pay the taxes for ‘underestimated income’ and all the rest of it, at the rate of 50% to the Inland Revenue and 30% to the local council. The woman was left with 20% of the sale price and either had to work for the new male owner of her business or try to survive on what little remained after all the deductions and the loss she’d taken on the sale of her company.


With the few genuinely mega businesses owned by women, the government tried a mixture of strategies. One of the most successful was to bring in two new laws. The first was the Civic Duties Act, which instructed all female employees, no matter how senior they were in the company, to give both financial donations to ‘approved charities which exemplify the masculist philosophy and attitude to work and life’ and to provide ‘services’ to them for nothing and to assist them in the goal of raising money for their ‘meritorious activities.’


It was an entirely voluntary gesture whether or not male employees ‘offered their services to raise money for deserving causes’ but women were not only ‘laid under a statutory duty’ to ‘volunteer their services for the furtherance and encouragement of masculist ideals and practices’ but were even instructed about some of the ways in which they were ‘now required to demonstrate not simply an absence of the poison of feminist propaganda but a clear and correct understanding and exemplification of masculist philosophy.’


The ways in which they now had to demonstrate this varied. One was to require all female employees to ‘donate a week’s wages’ to ‘furthering the cause of masculism throughout the world’ and to ‘demonstrate not only a correct attitude towards masculism but a positive commitment to seeing and encouraging its triumph.’ These ‘voluntary donations,’ or, as they soon became nicknamed, ‘cuntributions,’ were not only widely resented by the girls but caused genuine hardship to the lower-paid workers. For a girl on a low wage to be forced to give up a whole week’s money meant that she might have to go without food or run the risk of being evicted if she could not pay her rent. Not that anyone cared; she could always become a hostel girl if that happened to her.


By far the most common method of demonstrating their commitment to masculism, though, was to make them take part in ‘sponsored fun events’ to raise money. Many of these events were covered by the media and soon became among the most popular game shows on television. The ones that got the highest ratings were those showing women being forced to humiliate themselves in public to raise money for masculist causes. In the early days it was girls working at low-paid and low status jobs who volunteered to be publicly humiliated because of the chance that they might win big prizes. Later on the humiliation was extended to women in medium status jobs and eventually to top female bosses. I will write about the various ways in which uppity females were humiliated and compelled to finance not only their own public degradation but even the hostile takeover of their companies in another chapter.


Over the course of the five-year Parliament the Justice Party made more and more inroads into women’s independence, on the economic, political and social level. During their second term in office they consolidated and strengthened the grip of men on all the levers of power. By the time they had completed their third term the situation of women was one step up from slavery to the superior male gender.



Review This Story || Author: Worthlessfem
Previous Chapter Back to Content & Review of this story Display the whole story in new window (text only) Previous Story Back to List of Newest Stories Next Story Back to BDSM Library Home