Women's Liberation from Humanity
Freedom from the prohibition on being
Some current thoughts on misogyny, masochism, feminism, total oppression, etc. Purely for my own thinking, not about anyone else, or anything else, besides my own vain and disgusting insularity, and self-justifying survival logic. It’s yet another totalizing theory of civilization as a digestive machine for converting life into waste, as usual… No surprises.
xo
“Society” functions by erasing women from existence.
While there are ways in which women can be seen, it is often, if not always through fetish. Lesbians, fat women, MILFs, trad housewife, goths – the fetishistic is the primary lens through which women can be seen and made legible. Women’s humanity must be obliterated in order for the category of “women” to exist at all. For women, by definition, as far as society is concerned, are defined by lack and absence.
This lack is not merely of a phallus, though it is that, to a degree. The phallus represents “humanity,” – the civilizing order, the disciplining scepter, and so on. For women to “lack” this biological appendage, indicates a “biological” and, therefore, fundamental absence of humanity.
In that gap, one finds a plethora of psychological weapons.
While, on the one hand, I’m tempted to take this as evidence of an alien agenda, where men are the subservient cogs in an intergalactic human farming operation, I try my best to keep ideas somewhat grounded. Though, to be perfectly honest, I believe that it is the case — it’s only my fear of sounding mercilessly unhinged, that I’ve not yet articulated this theory fully, though it will come someday, if it’s meant to be sounded off… For the purposes of this entry, and put simply: men’s sexuality is largely operative towards cannibalizing(penetrating) the planet, and it is a significant driver of capitalist consumption and general “terrestrial enslavement.”
Nevertheless! Since women are fundamentally defined by absence, it allows the (male) imagination to project all kinds of things into that gaping void – their phallus, certainly; a dominatrix, an animal, an angel, a whore – anything! Women become mere symbolic projections of what the phallus would like to fill, shape, and control.
At the same time, women represent what the phallus is already controlled and dehumanized by (libidinal desire), and the symbolic imaginary is the plane on which the phallus creates fantasies where that illogical, primal pull is finally subjugated and collapsed. These projections are then applied to material and behavior.
The very same absence that compels projection and distortion is the same absence that obsesses and engulfs. (fundamental cosmic asymmetry)
Always, and in either case, it is that women are half-real and half-symbolic. They are never complete. They need a baby, a husband, a career, beauty – always some prosthetic related to the phallic order, which would make them legible to others via their utility, their “thingness,” — objectification — rather than their “beingness”.
By achieving this completeness through engagement with broader culture, she becomes a MILF, a tradwife, an office siren, a bimbo, a nerdy nympho, etc.
This is the very essence of “misogyny” – to take women’s existence and collapse them into fuel for phallic consumption (and social production, the offspring of the phallic-sodomic order).
Visibility comes from caricature, parody, and performance, not (and potentially, never) from mutual recognition.
Cosmic asymmetry must remain intact.
Even in women’s minimal expressions of inner desire and drives, let’s say, the desire for a family, a career, and so on — they are consistently reduced to phallic servitude. Everything women do is reabsorbed into the very system that erases them. As individual beings with drive and wills of their own, women are utterly dismissed, and this perpetual degradation is inescapable, as it instantiates from the body, to language, and fantasy.
Some women tend to put other women down, assuming that by doing so, they’ll get a chance to free themselves from the oppression. You cannot blame them, for the oppression is so severe and unrelenting, it is perfectly logical to want to degrade and destroy what is already being put up for public execution.
What I mean here is that women’s sexuality is a prime target for attack.
Since women must be absent, they fundamentally cannot have a sexuality, or an internal drive, or self-directed desire (whore), and if they do, it will be recast as being “centered on men,” or “for male approval” (because nothing women do is of their own volition, according to social rules).
It doesn’t matter how ugly, how intelligent, how creative, how thoughtful — the reduction to thingness, rather than beingness, always follows women.
Women, when acting from their own interiority, are disciplined, shamed, and insulted until they appear to return to their expected and safe “state of absence.”
For example, online, I regularly come across discourse regarding the need to “de-center men,” or that women with intense sexual drives behave like “gay men.” Both of these statements are perfect examples of a superficially altruistic, yet viciously cruel demonization and erasure of women.
The first: the command, to “de-center men.” Primarily, it serves to increase shame. For heterosexual women who are attracted to men, this will immediately increase guilt and shame for their own sexual desire towards men.
At the same time, the subtler message is self-erasure: the same self-erasure the phallus uses to project itself. If a heterosexual women’s pleasure is centered on male bodies, then for her to “de-center men,” also means de-centering her desires and her sexuality. The shaming tactic is the surface vector. The real attack is on the interiority of heterosexual women.
What makes this “de-center men,” narrative so insidious is that it typically, though not unsurprisingly, comes from the seemingly “pro-feminist” narrative that wants to “liberate women.”
It seems to me, this frame is intensely based on propagating self-hatred. Self-hatred for wanting men, self-hatred for one’s desires, self-hatred for wanting what the world is telling you not to. It is a soft violence to demean women for their sexuality, an almost grooming tactic to shame women, which, if we’re being honest, serves to further isolate women, and make them more vulnerable as prey.
You’ll find this message of self-hatred/fundamental lacking is one of the more consistently repeated ones in society. It is undoubtedly Freudian in nature, especially since it is so prevalent in marketing, media, and pornography: always exacerbating desire, while threatening to punish the subject — should the desire ever be consummated. In that way, you, as consumer, subject, and citizen, are always searching, seeking, buying, “yearning” — exacerbating desire for completion, while denying and shaming both the desire itself, and the possibility of completion. This tension maintains the state of lack. (perhaps the tension itself is the “lack.” ?)
In fact, the self-hatred angle funnels directly into the homophobic and misogynistic “heterosexual women are like gay men,” narrative. Not only does it erase real women, distance them from their very sexuality, and their bodies, replacing them, yet again, with the phallus, it replicates the same basic formula of self-erasure: hate yourself for desiring what you desire, erase your interiority and submit to what the external world is telling you to want.
This, I assume, is a significant emotional and psychological burden on all of humanity, but, perhaps, particularly so for homosexuals, or at least, it once was. When “the world,” is telling you to desire one thing, but everything inside of you wants something else, there is no doubt an extreme inner conflict will ensue.
This inner conflict is especially important for the functioning of our current world. It is a primary weapon for profound and long-lasting psychological fragmentation.
If you can get a subject to hate who they are, they will automatically compartmentalize and create a tiny space for the inner desire, while continuing to and increasingly perform the exteriorly mandated one; forever managing and burying their core self, until, even that is broken and unrecognizable to who they are.
This is how performance and alienation replicate: when subjects cannot know themselves, they cannot recognize others. This leaves all mankind to perform as “selves,” rather than “being” a self.
Media works particularly well for this “agenda.” The more shame, insecurity, surveillance, and guilt are piled onto the interior self, the wider the fracture becomes between “real” and performative identities.
This fragmentation makes the subject much easier to manipulate and control. It is within “liminal spaces,” / fractures in self, time, memory, etc, where control is exercised. It is in the space of vulnerability, conflict, and uncertainty where psychological, social, biological, and planetary domination is played out.
While none of us are immune to the inner conflict of needing to conform to the socially organized world, heterosexual women are degraded at nearly every angle and turn. Even when they desire men, which “should be,” the most externally conforming/confirming behavior — according to the global situation — it also doubles as a feminist offense to women as a group. A woman who desires men is a traitor, a slut, a whore; she’s enslaved to men, as if it were against her will, as if she has no interior, no internal desire, and is only a dumb, brainwashed object of men’s desires.
Coincidentally, this is the very same phallic projection applied to women from a more conservative wing. Both sides seem to agree on one thing: women are insentient “things.”
In any case, this same rule is repeated everywhere: you have no agency, no will, no interiority.
This is explicitly applied to women, but, as feminists have long pointed out, its consequences befall all humankind, including men. For their part, they’re often cast as predatory and violent dicks; pornography addicted, power-money hungry slaves.
Through desire — the space between inner want and external satiation by acquisition — human beings are reduced to monolithic, flat and monstrous symbols — never fully legible or recognizable to themselves or others. This gap is filled by mediation, interpretation, and projection, and there is no escape from it, nor from its inherent corruption, distortion, and degradation of “being.”
Liberation, then, would be acceptance of total degradation and distortion, whether to men, media, the state, the sun, or even death itself. Complete surrender to “being” (or non-being) placed squarely on the shoulders of the Other.
“Liberation,” as far as the liberal-humanistic definition goes, is ultimately impossible to achieve under a social order that defines “being” by absence, objectification, and lack. (Whether that lack is applied to men, or women, it is the same function and result = self-fragmention).
Whether absent or apparent, the self will remain erased and mutilated.
Liberation, under such a system becomes (for me), a self-directed, willful, and voluntary surrender to degradation, humiliation, and dehumanization, and coming out on the other side of it – or not.
Once such a realization appears and is accepted: that there is no exit — that obesity, ugliness, charm, beauty; desires, inner self, hopes, and despairs are all consumable materials for civilizational production and digestion — fodder for shame and guilt manufacturing, fodder for social and terrestrial control, it becomes clearer — the bare architecture of oppression that exploits every thought, sensation, and move.
This, I find, is better than nothing, better than the constant demand for erasure. At least this sense of awareness gives me some understanding of the architecture of the world I find myself inhabiting.
As for others, they may well prefer to use such psychological weapons against others, and enforce laterally, the degradation and subjugation of humanity through implicit, covert hierarchy.
For myself, I take the weapon and brandish it self-sacrificially; always aiming to move through degradation like water, until it purifies completely; erodes whatever is already fragile, and resolves all tension and double binds between who society wants me to be, and who — not what — I am.
The more I erase myself, the clearer I appear.
Though there is no escape, and no inner will unpolluted by the mechanisms of cultural production, through voluntary self-sacrifice, one comes closer to the undiluted instance of being, where there is nothing to interpret and nothing to exploit.
Nothing could be more liberating than freedom from the incapacity and failure of “being.”
I surrender, and in doing so, I finally “am.”
❤️
