There are various degrees of patriarchal posturing, and mind reading.

Tha hall mark of a patriarch as such is always mind reading. A patriarch, if we are to define him, is somebody who believes he can look into one’s mind, and know what is there. Often enough, he simply draws his conclusions without engaging in any kind of conversation. At other times, he does engage in actual conversation, but then overrides any communication that has taken place. He supposes that despite what a paricular woman said, she actually meant something else entirely. He knows this just because he does — because his patriarchal ideology makes him an adherent and practitioner of mind reading.

Other kinds of mind reading take place in patriarchal society on the basis of a secondary effect of this kind of common attitudinalising by arch patriarchs.

There is the assumption that one’s thinking must simply take place within a patriarchally circumscribed context — in other words, that it must be defined by one’s partisanship in relation to a particular political or social camp. And, any particular camp, quite naturally, has an arch patriarch to lead it. If one is not partisan, then one is assumed not to think at all. In that case, there is no point asking you what you in fact think! Just assume that no actual thinking is taking place. (But this is a kind of reverse mind reading, or negative hallucination, taking away from the substance of thinking that is actually there.)

Ladies and gentlemen: I give you patriarchal mind reading!


To punish a witch.

The greatest challenge to survival under a patriarchal system is combating its distortion of communication at the most fundamental level.

Nothing could be more fundamental to humanity than the way the psyche registers pleasure or pain. One communicates, for instance, about one’s health and well-being as a means of expressing communality. However, if you are female, this kind of communication may not be considered to be a genuine form of communication, if the message is in any way a negative one (and particularly if a male was involved). You are first sent back to the scribbling board to revise.

A patriarch over there did WHAT?

But patriarchs are always kind, full of wisdom and benevolent — by definition!

Systematic incredulity: you are told that what happened didn’t happen, and what you saw, you didn’t in fact see.

To persist in asserting that what happened actually took place only gets you into more grief with the patriarchy. A mere assertion even slightly implicating a male is considered arrogance enough on the part of one gendered female.

To make the situation worse, you can go so far as to provide empirical evidence for your claims of patriarchal injury: “Here is the evidence of the patriarchal impact — on my body!”

Hysteria! The patriarchal construct of the “wandering womb“!

Reference to the material world is misused, according to the dictates of patriarchal reason, as evidence of constitutional unfitness to speak.

Henceforth, the more the “witch” endeavours to be free from the oppression of ongoing misconstrued communication, social censure and condemnation, the more the web of patriarchal meanings wrap her tightly.

Nowadays, a victim of patriarchal wrath might can often escape her ultimate demise by burning/drowning.

This reprieve is granted at the point the woman disavows her reason: she must first renounce everything she has ever heard, or seen or thought — especially and above all her ever-growing knowledge of the workings of patriarchy.


When no acknowledgment of past wrongs is forthcoming

We humans are not only receptive to being imprinted by prevailing power dynamics, during the formative stages, it seems, but ultimately we seek to understand our positions in the world on the basis of whether or not we are recipients of justice.

It is when we discover that we are not favoured by justice within a particular system of power that our minds start to undo themselves. We become perpetually stressed; we are traumatised.

From an outsider’s perspective, justice denied may not seem like a significant problem. After all, in a practical sense, life goes on, and we all end up somehow coping.

From the point of view of the one denied justice, however, life comes to a stop. He or she is not sure that they hold any place within the system as a whole anymore, or whether they have been scapegoated, pushed to the outside of the community, where reciprocity no longer comes into play.

From the very core of their being, they feel the most profound anxiety.

Should they go on acting as if nothing had happened to them (that is, as if no injustice was committed) when they know that the opposite was true? Should they try on an attitude of equality and hold their breath? Perhaps the other person would truly reciprocate in an affirming fashion, thus making things temporarily seem all okay again.

But what about the next person you came across? Would they reciprocate, too, or was the prior experience of reciprocation just a happy accident, a fluke — and all the same something to get you to let down your guard so that you can be violated again?

To publicly correct what had been wrong, to treat the person justly, would break the spell of deep anxiety, for this spell was cast at the very basic level of the mind’s early evolutionary consciousness. Here, the symbolically simplified message from past experiences speaks thus: “Your leaders will not protect you against violence or destruction.” Despite this being the case, if a community leader were to speak towards the issue of justice, this would reverse the original spell. Such manner of speaking is effective, for it targets a very fundamental level of consciousness — the level of consciousness that otherwise proceeds to handle things in a mode of fight or flight ┬áThis is at the level of thinking where one’s understanding of power relations is processed and developed. Without restorative justice, the basic level of fight or flight processing follows its own script. It continues to counsel: ‘Flee, for you have been found unworthy — and who knows what they will do to you next?”

To ignore hostility is to expose oneself to an even greater risk of harm.┬áSo, one’s psychological survival system continues to bark out its warning, one solidly founded upon the survival experiences of all human beings who have lived throughout the ages. It cries out convincingly!

“Get out of here” — it screams forth: “This is not a place for you, not a place where justice is done.”

message to patriarchs: get your affairs in order!

One of the aspects of non-intellectual Perthian culture (and even, perhaps, certain aspects of its intellectual culture) involves a kind of attitude which I would call “bad horsemanship toward women”.

It’s not even particularly the problem that women are treated generally as non-humans. That would be strange enough. Yet is is relatively easy to reciprocate in that case: if someone does not see me as a human being with regular human concerns, then I am not obliged to see them in that light, either.

What is strange is an attitude that is not practiced on race courses, not practiced wherever man and beast are supposed to get along. It’s encapsulated in the attitude that so long as I do not experience the whip, I don’t respect you.

The lowbrow nature of this assumption is easy to perceive. Whereas a horse, an animal in tune with its instincts, would not stand for such poor treatment, women, being creatured denuded of their instincts — nicely castrated as it were — are not supposed to realise what is actually happening to them. It is supposed to be beyond them to see the situation as it is. Even though is it not beyond them to see reality for what it is, they are told that having such perceptions is beyond them.

But cognitive dissonance cannot be reliably beaten into a person. Perhaps you have a 50-50 chance that the outcome of this maltreatment will fall in your favour. It’s a lowbrow playing of the odds that makes you assume the process of abusing simply has to work.

Despite that women are defined as unseeing, it is a lowbrow mind that would stoop to believing its own propaganda. A definition is one thing: reality is another. The two aren’t necessarily the same unless they both come from a reliable source. Which patriarchal ideology is not.

Beware, therefore, how low you sink — because every desecration of your humanity is obvious and patently observable!