Wednesday, 20 January 2016

Only Happens to Good Women






I have spent long time thinking about violence, oppression, crime, and violation of human rights in the last 14 years + because that is what I am going through during ALL THIS TIME. I do admit, however, that I have always been enduring all that, it is just that, in the last 14 years + things got a lot worse, but a lot worse indeed, to the point of having no basic human rights all the way through. 



One of the reasons would have to be the media and the how much we do not acknowledge the impact of its messages on us. The Brazilian Army once had censorship in place in Brazil and people found that really bad, but I did notice that who complained the most was not the people themselves. It was the artists, and usually those who were homosexual, drug addicts, and things of the type. Censorship, if done by a randomly and democratically chosen group of scientists, should actually be a healthy thing, given the harm we get from uncensored TV, marketing, and others. There is something about it on Jeannies Out



Another reason is irrational procreation: Procreation could never be a right. It would have to be a very special allowance and people should be obliged to make use of contraceptive methods instead of what we have. There is something about it on Birth  



Yet Another reason is inadequate tolerance: They invent that human rights is accepting those who will actually violate human rights as equals. That cannot be. There is something about it on Islam



Another reason is equivocated paradigms spread around the Globe: That women have more of a parent than men do and therefore we give them leave when they give birth, but we give men fewer days or something else in place of the leave, if we give them something. That who should take care of the belly of the woman, her weight, and others is the own woman, not both father and mother. That the mother is expected to visit the doctors during pregnancy, not both the father and the mother. That if the person is in a couple they can or should attend medical appointments on their own instead of together, and so on so forth. 



Mainly, I am a woman and such an extraordinary amount of violence, aggression, oppression, violation, usurpation of rights, and others has happened to me, not to a man. That is because there is a generalized belief that women are lesser people, especially righteous women: They are here to serve men, they are here to serve others. They are here to help others and to give things to them, not to be served like everyone else. They have  or should have no needs: They should all be Jeannies. They do not need property, privacy or freedom, for, first of all, what are they gonna do with that?, says the Islamic. The good woman does not really like sex, for she is able to sublimate in the name of the relationship with the husband even for ages if she believes he is not unfaithful, perhaps believing there is another explanation for them not to have sex regularly or something. If she needed sex, she would betray him, for so many men offered themselves to her. She doesn't. 



Society does not respect righteous people in general, but, in special, women. They tend to judge them according to their personal paradigms, sometimes skipping all the laws and systems in place, as in my case, and then apply absurd penalties to them, completely illegal, irrational, and unconstitutional at least sometimes, as in my case (since the end of 2001 (and so far)). Why would righteous women not be entitled to the standard systems and rules in what comes to the way others treat them? They are lesser people! Why are they lesser people? Because women, in general, are either prostitutes or idiots, like they are either Jeannies or Mata Haris. Men, however, can be anything: impotent, parasitic, marginal, righteous, and others. Nobody will ever judge them without a court, condemn them extra-officially in democracy and capitalism, and skip the laws and official systems to apply any penalty that be not allowed. 



I worked very hard to get what I got in that end of 2001 (to be who I was, to look in the way that I looked, to achieve as much as I did, to think in the way that I thought, to have the information that I had, and etc.),  and my life and person has been violated and disrespected to maximum degree in these more than fourteen years so that all that I fought for, with so much effort and hard work, could be enjoyed by other people instead of me. This all has happened in First World Democracy, capitalism. The own authorities for law and order who I went for help against my aggressors in that end of 2001 are responsible for all from beginning to end. I think I am sure they do that only to women who are righteous. 



Why? Because they are seen as mothers, universal mothers: A person like me thinks that their every gesture, their every word, will have an enormous impact on the others, so that she thinks a lot about all that all the time and tries to her best measure consequences before doing or saying anything. Their lives are hell compared to the life of the idiot, that is, of the prostitute, of the drug addict, of the parasites by choice, of the promiscuous, and of their alike beings, for those think of nobody apart from themselves at all times. 



Basically, the couple of choices that women can have contrasts by much with the plethora of choices that men have in terms of who they can be in a heterosexual marriage. Any woman who escapes the two available choices has a much higher probability of suffering crime than those who don't. As another point, women ONLY, the mother type, is here to give. We do not have to be all mothers and fathers of each other: Only the righteous women are seen as mothers and, very unfortunately, as a consequence, given the dominant paradigms, universal givers. A mother IS NOT A GIVER! Taking care of others is our obligation, of each one of us, not an idiot's decision. That is our people's decision in democracy: We chose, as vast majority, to take care of each other. One must notice that Jeannie is like that only with her Major, for instance. People do not seem to have discernment enough not even to notice the subtleties involved: I just watched an episode (I am obliged to watch for weird reasons) in which the Major's friend got the bottle with Jeannie allowing that, but, when he ordered something, Jeannie did not do it, so that, even in that scenario, of an idiot's world, Jeannie made it clear that ONLY for her Major, not for his friends or others. Even the Jeannies are not here to be givers in general and, go excuse-me, but, I do reckon that if they find out that their Majors betray them, for instance, they will stop being their Jeannies immediately, as for vast majority, and they may even become an Army's Widow (there is a woman who is told to have married and, basically, killed more than 10 husbands inside of the Brazilian army. With that, she accumulated all their pensions) after finding out, so that they are, by no means, universal givers. They are at most doing things on the intents of pleasing the man who gives them sex, love, and other commodities that they praise, now talking about the Jeannies of real life, not the sexless TV Jeannie. 



The underlying reasoning, however, is that if you are a woman and you are a bit of a Jeannie for a man, then you are a universal giver, and, in being such, we can take from you if you don't give because you like giving, you are here for that, and you have no needs or wishes or restrictions or you should not have those, since righteous women will always care about others, and will care more about them than they care about themselves. 





__________________________________________________________



__________________________________________________________

    


No comments:

Post a Comment