The Female Assassination
Men have to impose ‘real’ solutions. Its why there’s war, there’s genocide, there’s economics, there’s rape there’s domestic violence etc. Its curious because interestingly its also often been men who have muscled in with the notion that nothing is real, nothing exists and so on – this being all part of science and thought such as Quantum Physics – plus Philosophy and the esoteric too if need be.
This isn’t a post on idiocy/stupidity per se – however one can take the whole issue of patriarchy and its means as being a problem – and it being one that is stupid because of its numerous negative ways. Insidious ideology and doctrine is certainly stupid because it revolves around the notion that others must fit in and follow a certain line of thought.
In another way, it does sort of depend on what part of the spectrum of ideology/doctrine one sits too – although as I must note, it does not prevent violence that emanates from numerous doctrines in question.
Its about bringing ideas to fruition. Patriarchy and religion are but two of those. In the same sense that ‘God’ must exist, therefore it also follows that , for example, women are a problem. In terms of the original intent of this post, a recent female victim known as Ann Widdecombe was no doubt seen as a threat, a malevolent presence and therefore in the minds of some, almost invariably a male, had to be removed. The male art of removing women is something that has, despite the notion that some will object to the concept, held popular consensus for centuries. History has been replete with the desire to remove women because they formed a threat of some sort to the male ideal – and that ranges from Hypatia of Alexandria to Joan of Arc and others who were no doubt obtuse to that very ideal. One of the best examples of patriarchy in history would be Henry VIII – whose six wives’ fates were as follows: Divorced, beheaded, died; Divorced, beheaded, survived. 1 Henry, like all men of the time, wanted a male heir, and his wives, all excepting one, were unable to deliver.
In most of life the male is the prominent figure when it comes to both politics and religion. The family unit is a crucial part of what is known as the patriarchy. And that’s why patriarchy is on the whole a violent and unforgiving doctrine – one that’ll basically not ever change. Men think its their prerogative to ‘evolve’ – this by way of war, conquest, imposition of ideology and belief – and for women to be subservient.
One can align it with the Witchfinder General and the need to find witches – a subject covered in some detail on Human Idiocy. Hopkin’s own bias and his contrived and needlessly convoluted ideals were not questioned – yet those of others especially women, were. In terms of that its the women who are irrational, convoluted and therefore pose a considerable threat to what men hold dear – the ‘normality’ of everyday life (if ever there was such a thing). Curiously in the quest for that very normality, men often resort to abnormal ways in order to retain what can only be a male sustenance. Examples include war, genocide, and practising nefarious doctrines in order to subvert others.
Its why women are manipulated as the wife and bearer of children – its essentially a form of human farming. All types of attempt at such things have come to pass and the subversion of others has been part and parcel of attempts to cleanse the world of what are deemed to be unsuited communities. Alas the unfortunate offspring that are female seemingly gets disposed of so easily in numerous communities – including India, Pakistan being among the countries and communities where every effort is made to ensure its the male and not the female that holds the cards. In many instances the female form is aborted before birth or killed after birth and so on. And if the female should survive to become a woman, and she does wrong in the eyes of men, she too is likely to be killed. The anger of men knows no bounds when it comes to women.
Even in the UK we have seen such intricacies in the recent examples of the deaths of two totally differing politicians. Jo Cox and the previously mentioned Ann Widdecombe. The fact these occurred at both ends of the political spectrum illustrates that the male mind is also totally polarised in how these two women were viewed – plus the ‘natural’ bias that’s also held against women – has resulted in what can only be a brutal kill.
What the men are doing is essentially the imposition of a solution towards females who are perceived as a slight. The interesting thing is there is a sheer element of fantasy that has come to cause the situation. Political belief isn’t any sort of real thing for example – as those like Yuval Noah Harari deem in his 2015 TED talk. Basically all human thought is just a construction with little basis in any sort of real world – yet politics effects realism by way of debating what is right and wrong, what needs to be done, followed by legislation, enforcement etc. Largely man-made no doubt.
Whether psychology has actual answers to this isn’t known. Like everything else, we all bring perspectives and answers that attempt to resolve or find reasons for things that happen, but its very different opposed to say cutting pieces of wood up and hammering them into a shape that forms a table or a chair.
In fact its hard to really ‘see’ what others think and sometimes the response is unfortunately to enforce a means of ‘realism’ that is laced with violence. Sticks and stones might break one’s body but words can’t hurt. And that is what has to happen. A hammer (or a knife even) are implements that render a abrupt, effective and violent means.
A slap across the face is still substantial in terms of violence. The drawing of blood or the sight of bruising is evidently more effective because a tangible (and visible) result has been achieved. Hence an aggressor perceives that a justice has been achieved.
In the same way opposing armies feel victory when one or the other lays slain and bloodied and strewn across a battlefield. One must remember not all battles have resulted in the side holding the moral cards winning. Oft times its been the bad guys that have won. We can see that in many instances of conflicts in history – as well as those that occur across the globe today including one where there is every certainty that a genocide has occurred yet the side that is effecting this sees itself as the side that holds all the moral cards etc.
This is a sort of deep dive into what is and what’s not – but the truth is, if we are ever to work out why men are extremely violent towards women, there’s no doubt there’s more than the eye or the mind can fathom. Things occur because of deep seated factors including upbringing, the imbalance in education and jobs plus the clash of conceptual tectonics, and that’s just the start. Its an extremely complicated matter for which few have any real answer.
Essentially the whole essence of existence is laced with what ifs and what nots. Are things real? Is politics real? Is belief real? Is patriarchy real? Or are they things humans construct? The latter is no doubt the most likely thing that’s happened but as humans we find it very hard to look outside of our own constructed world and see things for what they really are.
This is what happened with the Witchfinder General. He had every inkling that what he was doing was real and his mind was full of the idea that witches really did exist. Even so a certain level of implausibility had to be practised too. The fact any unfortunate women who had been swum or dunked – and drowned as a result – is fait acommpli. It does not answer the question which is whether a woman is really a witch or not. By this reasoning it was through that any women which survived the ordeal had to be a witch and so they were either hung or burnt.
But surely every women alive and under that reasoning was a witch ought to be hung or burnt? Thus one can see the fallacy of the arguments postulated by the Witchfinder General.
In a sense its like asserting that the only good copper is a dead one. There are numerous example like this in every society where the negative oppositeness must be held in high esteem in order to not let the system in question be threatened.
This is fallacious reasoning. Evidently any thought that the only good woman would be a dead one denotes that a violent death seems the only means to absolve cleanliness of the impurity any woman has.
Its why there are honour killings, which often are violent too in how they unalive the victims in question. Violence is also seen as a justice. If the victim cannot live what is held up as a life of certain ideals then a violent death is necessary to purge the evil and also to satisfy the male perpetrator that a proper justice has been done.
This is why a lot of women are fearful of their lives. They feel if they do not live up to the male ideal of how they should look and act, be the male will kill them. Its thanks to the widely universal held notion that men hold the upper hand and almost invariably its men that are going to do the ugly deed.
Sadly men themselves seem unable to see through this. They are unable to hold themselves up to a mirror and see the obtuse ways in which they approach life. Some do no doubt but these are rare because it takes a considerable skill set to be able to view the world in a way few others can.
The promotion of any idea or thought invariably leads to numerous inconsistencies. For example, is God omnipotent? Those who say that is right invariably put aside the impossibilities of it ever being true. Its the same dunking women and finding they were not witches. Essentially there is no ultimate proof for anything – so basically most things can be enforced without question – and patriarchy has been one of the longest sustained ideologies which has operated by that very means. There are so many examples of sub-branches of ideologies that have existentially threatened communities and countries, and many of these have come from patriarchy.
The sad thing for women is they have to face a world where many men deem a certain kind of reality is the decree absolute. Damned if they do and damned if they don’t. The punishment for not observing this or any other reality is violence. Often it starts with a slap or a fist and morphs to what can only be gratuitous violence. In numerous cases the female ends up dead.
We can liken this to the plight of animals. The ways and means animals are treated often indicates the shallowness humanity exists in. Similarly the ways and means in which the female is treated also highlights the shallowness humanity – especially the male species – lives.
Thus no amount of answers or solutions will be effective if the whole thing is based on an imagination. The goal posts move and numerous explanations come and go and yet the main problem remains – the issue of male violence against women. That is most real but the main underlying means is in constant flow and its hard to really see what is the problem at hand.
In a sense it seems the only reality is to arm oneself against violent men. The problem there is the law (or laws of the country in question) prohibits means of violence even if used in self defence unless certain conditions are met so essentially the laws that are drawn up by men also pervade the issue and cloud the ethics at hand. Often men take away with the other hand and that is evident in numerous applications of politics, society and community. So what is the answer to male violence against women?
In a sense there isn’t any answer. The one and only true answer might be ‘If they can put man on the moon why don’t they put them all there?’ 2 Clearly there are things that can be termed measures which might reduce the many such eventualities that patriarchy offers – but the problem is no matter what, it does not in any way or form prevented maladjusted minds from carrying out something the believe needs to be done.
Some say men need to be supervised/embargoed/curfewed completely. But the problem is many would object and in terms of freedom there would be a revolution, a break out from jail etc. Its that thing called freedom. There’s nothing wrong with freedom but today’s societies, especially patriarchy, has distorted such concepts so much it now depends on a number of moving goal posts and ever decreasing circles. Its indicative that society has huge problems because it can’t solve its problems in any easy way – not even when it comes to freedom or rights. Why? That’s a good question! Evidently no real answers can ever be provided and it all depends on swings, roundabouts and chicanes in terms of ideology, concept, and opinion as well as morals, ethics and legislation etc.
Its much the same as environmental degradation and global warming. It can’t be stopped because the human machine needs its transport, plane flights, exotic holidays etc and people will find ways to negate any prohibitive thought of using these. In a sense these are pornographies that abstract and destroy cultures and the environments in which these exist. Its bad evidently but it cant be stopped. Humanity is located in what can only be numerous addictive things from taking holidays to photography, hobby collecting etc. We call many of these interests and that of women is almost certainly an interest too and its one that has many variations from fashion shows to idolising beautiful women or conquering as many women as possible sexually. The problem is like other interests (such as grouse shooting, fox hunting, bull fighting, and so on) it too can be problematic, but few are going to take note of that anyway – except perhaps women themselves.
The whole onus of male violence against women is certainly indicative of one thing. Humanity is almost invariably on the wrong track. But what is the right track? Humanity can’t even debate that in any reasonable and proper way because it has no comparators. The very means and the make up of the human world is that it is a construct that has many replete inconsistencies which are erroneous thus nearly impossible to correct. Even the law, politics, etc. One can argue against the police and the law and certainly when it comes to various auditing videos – many of which can be seen on Youtube – these auditors are using a clever sleight of speech and thought in order to oppose or challenge and deflate what the law and its officials actually think. But on the other hand the law enforcers are too guilty of the same means because they too often proffer various means of interpreting the law (including their own built in bias).
One must remember society has been built from the ground up and its like an ant hill. Remove a large part of it and most of it will come tumbling down. Humanity essentially cannot go back but must go forward on such a range of extremely faulty parameters. In short it persists on a range of stupidities that it believes to be the only means of going forward.
There’s no doubt that murder, war, rape will continue and humanity will, in an overall sense, also continue to present itself as good, progressive and its ultimately getting the answers. But when its largely led by men, things are largely inconsequential in terms of the deemed protections and rights that women should have. Maybe the only answer is for women to set up female army style police forces that will fight hordes of perps and rapists. Currently there’s ICE in the States and we can see the sheer controversies this causes – because its seen as an affront on dignity, rights, the status of refugees etc. Plus what the ICE do isn’t exactly ethical either is it? But again, the problem is control, coercion, and the rest of it. Do we want a 1984 society. One where everyone is controlled, monitored and language is Newspeak? Well I think that is sort of what we will get. Every human will have to be monitored just to make sure no-one is erring on the side of bad. But what is good and what is bad and evidently the whole argument will be that this constant monitoring is an affront to human dignity therefore there must be war, revolution etc. Remember in the past many enslaved people have sought freedom and fought their oppressors. So what is the answer?
Essentially everything is near enough fatally flawed. Even the existence of a woman is flawed because among many things, her existence is threatened by men who are determined to do any number of things against her sex. Even in a war men will no doubt take that as an opportunity to defile the female form en masse so there is every possibility that a woman will be attacked in her own home because, well, its like carrying a knife and stabbing someone – and its ‘how things work.’ Few ever take the time to consider the deep implications of such actions.
A knife? What is it for? Well a knife is used for cutting things and it can be very useful, but take it beyond a certain level and its a very bad thing. Yet many intent on stabbing someone never for a moment stops to think or question what they are doing or even to ask themselves whether what they are doing is merely a figment of human need that is fallacious, questionable and they are certainly themselves also a victim of such inconsequential human means. In short they have thought what can only be a need, a desperate act, into existence.
The guy who drove 250 miles to hammer Ann Widdecombe to death certainly did that. He saw there was a need to so this and drove those 250 miles in order to do that. Plus there were other equations into the thought – she was a woman, she deserved a terrible punishment and she was a politician with certain views – again something viewed as terrible and requiring punishment (essentially a perverted justice of sorts). In a sense its stupidity that clouds a person’s judgement and they proceed to do stupid things – for which stupid answers (such as prison or the death penalty) can only be the answers.
Currently the only answer is that women need to be more astute, more alert, more prepared. But even so, there are pitfalls. The whole of life is based on uncertainty. One might take a holiday somewhere and die in a car crash or in an avalanche. How can one be prepared against such uncertainty? One can only try. But let’s remember, men are not going to be stopping their endeavours anytime soon and that because they are, for the sake of it, certainly stupid and too unable to see the wrongs that are being perpetuated. Certainly a large percentage of females expect to meet their fate at the hands of a male.
All these things are linked to paradox, ontology, phenomenology, attributes, philosophical inquiry, language, moralistic reasoning, right/wrong etc. But what is the answer? As Ludwig Wittgenstein (sorry there’s no female equivalent of him) had showed, ideas can have no bearing on reality since they are a figment of the imagination – but ideas certainly exist in the metaphorical sense and these would therefore translate into a ‘reality.’ As he would put it, ‘Nothing is so difficult as not deceiving oneself.’ 3 It seems humanity needs to throw its ladder away and start again afresh.
