Warning: invisible trapdoor!

The articles appearing in American papers that are designed to impute women as being “a little dim” are hidden trapdoors for narcissistic and gullible men. They are written by men and women who want to destroy the stupider men among their ranks, in order that there may be more of everything to go around for those who do not fall for such intensive nonsense.

When one really wants to destroy an enemy one would begin by giving him a false sense of security about himself. The articles that paint women as a little dim are conducting an art of war against the more unwary of the males. These articles are social darwinism at work, constructing hidden trapdoors beneath the feet of the most gullible of men.

The gullible believer’s inability to differentiate between reality and unreality continues to expand like a tumor in his brain. His intellect is continually eroded. Eventually, at the point of falling flat on his face, he starts to posture that “no women will ever be a match for me.” Henceforth, the trapdoors of reality start to beckon, and behold he gets a sinking feeling. Not only that, but lurking enemies await him in the pits, having noticed his quite obvious (by now) and grotesque, clambering flat-footedness:

He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared.

win some lose some

As Seeing Eye Chick points out patriarchy is always on one’s case if one is female.

One of the strategies ‘it’ uses to control — which is to say, one of the strategies freely available to its members — is to deny that the social limitations on women succeeding have any social context.

Two can play at that game (and more, if need be.)

The patriarch who denies social context has a blind spot. What he cannot see is that for every gain in life there is a concomitant loss in life, and for whatever loss one experiences through the process of living, there is usually also a concomitant gain. Life is exactly a DIALECTICAL game!

For the patriarch who uses society’s existing patriarchal systems to his advantage, to get ahead, this process extracts the concomitant disadvantage of: additional stress, loss of free time, loss of time to develop the intellect, also a certain amount of depersonalisation (becoming regimented and automatised). He is a business manager and is earning multi-bucks, but he is NOT absolutely and unquestionably “a winner”.

Yet the patriarch wants to assert that having the role of business manager makes him a winner, as he has the mega-bucks to back him up. He wants others to be seen relatively as losers. Women, in particular, are sidelined to a role of offering their applause. Yet he has socially decontextualised the loss that women experience, as well as the gain he has achieved. It seems to him that his achievements are independent of the social structure of patriarchy, and that each person’s achievements stand apart from the effects of social structure, as a testimony to his or her individuality.

So, I say to such a patriarch: “Come and talk to me. And let us see the flashes of brilliance emanating from thy intellect!”

I beseech him to come and sit down so that I can hear the emanations of a truly worthy mind. And he sits down…

And he spouts forth.

And there is nothing to his spoutings. There’s no content. No shining brilliance. Just the rusty outpourings of his fatigue.

And I sayeth: “Oh but thou hast had a LIFETIME of good leisure and outrageous freedom all about thee: Room and time enough to develop a shiny and winsome intellect! And yet I see this not before me.”

And it becomes evident that the patriarch has failed in the stakes of life — for he hath not an intellect.

zee pill

This has been a rough week, because for some reason I’ve had the most severe allergic headache on and off, throughout the week.

It very likely has to do with my weaning from the pill. I’m giving it a break, in order to develop muscular abs. The hormones tend to weaken the muscle development in that area. Yet, I am very susceptible to wind born allergens, and somehow I seem to have less protection from the violence of allergic attack off the pill as compared to on it.

Nevermind.

feminine struggle?

I’m still rereading Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex. I find the underlying idea of feminine struggle and subjugation interesting. It accords with my idea that patriarchy is keen to set traps to control women, as an endeavour of bad faith.

The patriarchal man, in my view, is rarely a very happy man. His self development (intellectual and emotional) goes unchallenged by any strong dialectic, which would be provided by an equal (woman as equal). The patriarchal man, then, is a very developmentally stunted man. And he is developmentally stunted to the degree that he is patriarchal.

Transcendence (that which Beauvoir recommends for women, in order to escape the patriarchy) also has its negative effects according to other writers. For, it is a peculiarly transcendental sort of error to imagine that by having power one has the various aspects relating to human self development. As Nietzsche, for instance, goes some way to pointing out, “power makes stupid”, whereas in order to have intelligence, one has to have needed to develop it. The idea that power also equals psychological superiority pertains to a transcendent perspective, unhinged from material reality. For having one does not necessarily (that is causally) entail having another except in the world of magical thinking. In some ways, transcendental thinking and magical thinking are hand in glove.

So, should women always think in terms of transcendence in order to escape patriarchal domination? In doing so, they might just buy into the already established patriarchal errors of redemption through making stuff up.

I find striving for self improvement at the level of physical self development much more interesting.

Marechera’s feminism

I consider Marechera’s relationship to feminism to be compelling, although it is controversial. Certainly, he makes much of female sexuality in a metaphysical sense, implying that it is both a revealing gnostic force, as well as a psychologically overpowering and destructive quantum. Despite that, I would consider him a feminist sympathiser. He makes a female a dominant and mystical force in BLACK SUNLIGHT.¬†
He sees that not every female finds that she can adapt her character to the strictures of femininity expected by society. His humourous rendering of the female makeup artist who ended up smashing the faces which she was unable to transform is very telling. It implies his promotion of revolutionary change so that women can express their innate characters (which can include their antifeminine, destructive impulses). He spells out that this is superior to conforming to the conventional feminine characteristics of patience or faith in  producing more superficial cosmetic affects (being a good make-up artist).