Blog Archives
Why Am I More Balanced Without Men?
Oh, the lie that is gender. Before I start, let me get this out of the way. Men and women as sexes are biologically different. There cannot be a concept of ‘equality’ between males and females simply because we are biologically, sexually different. And let me clear that up. You’ll already know what I’m going to say if you’ve read further on this blog.
First, gender is a sociological construct that creates forced, FALSE differences between males and females with the sole purpose of keeping men in power and women’s necks under men’s boots and mindlessly devoted to (enslaved by) them. That is it. The modern idea of replacing the meaningful, factual designation of SEX with gender is nefarious and intentionally done to hurt women and girls. Period. It is part of the po-mo, liberal and trannie movements over the past few decades, with very harmful results.
Second, that males and females are biologically different means something different than the intention of purposeful differentiation of males and females using gender. When I (and all scientific, brain-using people) say that males and females are different, we are not saying (unlike the gender users) that males are superior or that males and females are complementary beings with skill sets that fit together like a puzzle even though ‘female’ traits are still less valued and inferior to males’. No. What I mean is that biologically, males are born with destructive, sadistic, violent tendencies. Biologically, females are not. There are exceptions (like in every fucking evidence-based theory in history). But thousands of years of factual evidence that males commit almost all of the violent, murderous, torture-for-pleasure-based acts in every corner of the earth makes a few exceptions completely irrelevant. What are NOT sex-based differences are valued and undervalued skills. Males and females are born with equally distributed potential for skill development (meaning that math or engineering are not inborn male skills, and childcare and cleaning are not inborn female skills). I do think that some personality traits are more inherent in women, such as empathy and both patient detail and big picture thinking capabilities, and other traits are more common in men, such as psychopathy and limited range, but deep and violent emotionality. And for this reason, women are more likely to accept abuse without violent retaliation, and men are more likely to act violently for little to no reason at all. And also for these biological reasons, women remain under the control of men and men rape, kill, and just generally destroy with impunity and without a second thought as to what they have done. Ha, unless they are caught, and oh the crocodile tears and fake remorse.
But let me get to the question in my title. I’ve probably already indirectly answered it in the previous paragraphs. But I’ll spell it out.
I can’t tell you how many women (never mind the men) who buy into this idea of males and females complementing each other, and thus seeing ‘evidence’ (not evidence in the real sense, but as defined by religion or patriarchal mythology) that males and females need to partner and work together, of course, with females subordinating themselves with their necessary, but inferior skills. I remember, in particular, this horrific conversation I had in China years ago with two brilliant, talented women, one older Chinese and one younger Russian. And both of them, despite their amazingness, firmly believed that women couldn’t do so many of the skills that men could do, especially math. I bristled. I was always top of my class in math, and one of my masters degrees is in a quantitative, statistics-heavy field. But man-fucking as a female requires this kind of brain-dead assessment and self-denigration and belief in incompleteness, I remembered.
I also remembered my days of cowardly bisexuality. The misery of it, feeling my wings clipped, forced into a cage of self-limitation and pretending that the male in my life wasn’t half of what I was a person intellectually, emotionally, and in terms of learning and skills achieved. I remembered the freeing feeling I always had when the relationship inevitably ended after some particularly misogynistic event, like when he ended up raping me, shaming me, taking me for granted, or threatening me. Being alone, single, I realized that I had everything I needed in myself. I was balanced, able to do what I needed. A male was the anchor manacled to my ankle dragging me underwater (I know, I know, I am mixing a bunch of metaphors throughout this post). In essence, ending the hetero prison made me soar in many ways.
Men don’t build you up. They don’t have inherent skills that are barred to you as a woman. You bar yourself from being whole when you choose males. They might initially give you a false sense of being essential in some incomprehensible, womanly way. But over time, you’ll feel the drag. You are no longer soaring through air or across water (pick your metaphor). You are sinking, and fucking exhausted, and wondering why.
You don’t have to be a full-on lesbian to be free. Celibacy or asexuality work as well. You just have to let go of this idea than you need a man to complete you. You are complete when you enter this world. A whole being just from being born female.
Men can’t say that. In fact, they tell us the truth about themselves in so many ways every single day. Hence the need to control us and use us for our innate wholeness, innate balance. They are the incomplete, unbalanced ones, and parasitical at that.
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
Real Logic is Gender-Neutral
I’ve never understood the male mantra, often spouted by Patriarchy-serving women, as well, that ‘men are logical and women are emotional’. It just doesn’t make sense in the face of reality.
Every time I see a man:
- freak out about nothing, especially imagined slights,
- verbally abuse people, especially women,
- act out physically because of frustration, jealousy, pride, fear, helplessness, etc,
- whine because of some minor illness,
- get distracted by lust in the workplace or other otherwise professional situation,
- or get pissy when he doesn’t get his way or has his privilege pointed out,
I see emotion. High emotionality. And more importantly, an inability to control his emotions. Exactly the opposite of the qualities I want to see in a leader or person in a position of power. There are men who can deal with emotion sensibly, of course. But to say that men aren’t emotional is a load of crap.
Every time I see a woman:
- negotiate her way out of a violent situation at the hands of an emotional male or Patriarchy-compliant female,
- diffuse a situation, professional or otherwise, where men are getting emotionally out of control,
- ensure that everyone’s needs are heard and met in a group situation,
- look for the least violent, most peaceful and satisfying answer to a problem,
- or sensibly evaluate an unpredictable or escalating situation as one from which she should extricate herself and then do so,
I see logic. Objective, fair logic, and more importantly, a sense of control and consideration. Exactly the qualities I want to see in a leader or person in a position of power. There are women who do things that don’t seem sensible, of course – and most of these instances have to do with complying with Patriarchy and the impossible-to-deal-with pressure that such a system places on women. Patriarchy isn’t logical, you see.
So why the gender-based stereotypes?
First, the positing. I posit that once upon a time, long long ago, a man noticed a woman being emotional about some human rights abuse or other – possibly her own abuse and slavery administered by said man – and thought to himself, “This won’t do. She is distracting me from my self-serving plan with her plea that I consider other people’s/her feelings. I must put a stop to this!” And from then on, emotionality became a bad thing. Calling out a woman for a display of emotion – regardless of whether there is actual emotion being displayed and regardless of whether it is ‘appropriate’ for the situation, would immediately discredit a woman’s valid words, and form grounds for preventing women from seriously participating in anything. This tactic has worked for millennia.
Okay, so the particular catalyst for this very misogynistic derailing tactic may not have happened in exactly the way I posited (although, I’d be tempted to bet money on a scenario such as that). But the point is that somewhere along the way, men defined their emotional displays as good and women’s emotional displays as bad. Further, they failed to understand what ‘logic’ actually is, and became adept at selectively noticing and ignoring behaviour to support their own emotion-driven illogic. And then called it logical to carry on this abusive way!!! Fucked up or what?
First and foremost, Logic is a branch of mathematics. Very few people in the world have a strong grasp of it and can use it correctly. I knew a couple of guys in college who took Logic with a female professor (holy shit!), had their asses kicked, failed, and had to take the whole course again. What I’m saying is that Logic isn’t a male thing or a female thing. It is just a thing. A tool. A field of study. And both women and men are capable of understanding and using it if they study hard.
The term ‘logic’, on the other hand, is more loosely defined, and very often used incorrectly by men to define ways of acting or not acting that are acceptable to them. Logic, as men define it, is more about socialized male behaviour, primarily: expressing negative emotions, suppressing positive emotions and empathy, and engaging in violence and oppression. ‘Logic’ actually has little to do with logical thinking processes, as men define the term. But in reality, logic is about thinking and reasoning, and has nothing to do with sex or gender. Further, logical thinking and emotion are not mutually exclusive. One can have an emotional response to a moral issue that complements one’s logical thinking on the subject, for example.
Bottom line. Tools, such as logic, are gender-neutral. They have no agenda. They don’t target groups of people for harm or help. The users of these tools, however, can be very gender-biased and agenda-driven. In the hands of a well-meaning user, any tool can be efficient and helpful and elevate our species. In the hands of an idiot with nasty, self-serving intentions, the tool can appear to take on the power of that bad person and be used to hurt others and take society several steps backwards in its evolution.
So, even if just using the term to apply to a way of thinking, rather than referring to the branch of mathematics, logic is still gender-neutral. Only when you use it in a negative emotional way (as men tend to do) to stereotype and hurt groups of people, are you moving away from ‘logical’ usage. Nothing affects one’s ability to think logically or misuse a tool than having a fear- or hate-based agenda. Right, dudes?
Story Ending Never 
You must be logged in to post a comment.