On silencing women …
“Women, however, are considered merely as the objects of desire, and as the objects of the question. To the extent that woman “are the question,” they cannot enunciate the question; they cannot be the speaking subjects of knowledge or the science that the question seeks.” ~Shoshana Felman, Textuality and the Riddle of Bisexuality, “What Does A Woman Want?: Reading Silence and Sexual Difference
In my study of feminist writers, I have discovered the realm of confusing linguistic discourse. For example, the fact that America will say, “We are in the business of saving lives.” What they fail to mention is the financial worth of those lives they are willing to “save”. America does, and has, in fact, saved lives. But America fails to tell you on whose backs advancing medicine plunges medical history forward. Historically, this has been prison inmates, black slaves, the financially challenged, pregnant women, even foster children. Groups that have been deemed “less valuable” and are very vulnerable.
Even the ethic of mental health is masculine discourse. Who gets to decide what is “madness” and who gets to decide if a person’s “madness” is in need of a cure? These are riddles our leaders struggle with answering effectively. Except “effectively” seems to amount only to, a swing of a pendulum, back and forth that is incumbent upon the tides of time. The pandemic hit and suddenly the death penalty was taken off moratorium. As death row inmates ran for appeals, one by one, on a daily basis, mostly men were executed. Were our pandemic checks the result of this blood money? The money it would take to keep and care for the worst of the worst? This is economics 101.
I have learned our laws are not absolute nor are they static but rather dynamic and flexible depending on influences of leadership and the time period. The winds of change can, and do bring tides that wash up old ideas.
In the textuality of gang stalking with electronic assaults and psychotronic torture, the answer to the narrative of the phenomenology is this: “The targeted individual is mentally ill and in need of psychiatric services.” This doesn’t make sense, since the onset of the torture drives some to go on antidepressants so they don’t end up killing themselves. Yet, the torture continues. Why? It’s because torturing the “mentally ill” is something narcissists do in order to subjugate and fashion the individual into becoming a tool for their own personal use. Whether this is to be made an example of in an act of vendetta, “Don’t ever fuck with me again.” Or if it is used to manipulate the victim for sexual pleasure doesn’t matter. What matters is the personal freedoms of those victimized are usurped by a power that violates Sir Roger Bacon’s philosophy of the four principles for grasping truth. The first being submission to a power of leadership unworthy of allegiance. But then I suppose that is exactly why the person committing the electronic targeting does so in surreptitious fashion. They know they are unworthy of the victim’s attention and seek to remove this obstacle by clandestine subterfuge. This is to question, “What is the controller not saying while he is SPEAKING?” Roger Bacon new this truth all too well. The answer to this question in Sir Roger Bacon’s time was the correct answer because those selected to answer the question didn’t know the answer or wanted to conceal the truth.
Sir Roger Bacon’s four obstacles of grasping truth in his “Opus Majus”:
1. Submission to faulty or unworthy authority.
2. Influence of custom.
3. Popular prejudice.
4. Concealment of one’s own ignorance accompanied by an ostentatious display of knowledge.
Truth is not sought in hiding the hand that is stealing to avoid punishment. Truth enlightens and brings guilt of crime out in the open.
These so called rights granted to the “poor” WILL be violated if Roe Vs. Wade is over turned. Simply because religious philosophy does not equate with Democratic Philosophy (Church Vs State). As long as legalized killing is allowed abortion and death with dignity will never be clean nor will it ever be as simple as a command to, “Do no killing.” It is a dirty business within healthcare and women’s rights to healthcare, the prison’s subjugation of it’s inmates, and death with dignity. The fact that it will never be “clean” means it will always be a complex issue. So, what is this new SCOTUS saying to the American public without explicitly saying it? It’s more than just, “Women have no rights to their body when it comes to pregnancy.” It goes much deeper in church obedience. Once again, politics has reared it’s ugly masculine discourse.