Skip to content

Masochism Loves Company

December 16, 2009

The wronged party in any given incident need not recognize – or deem significant – their injury for witnesses to respond to said injury with reasonable ostracization of the offender.  Yet time and again, I’ve been asked to forgive or forget transgressions against friends simply because those friends have themselves forgiven or forgotten.  I’ve been told outright that I have no right to my own “grudge” when the injured party has “moved on,” that I should welcome the offender into my presence just because the directly offended so undervalues herself as to feel the transgression warrants no reaction.

I’m not even talking about retaliation, here .  I’m talking about the simple refusal to interact with those who would insult or injure those dear to me, especially repeatedly or egregiously.  Whenever I’ve held fast to this refusal, though, I’m generally the one cast aside.

If there’s so much comfort in this kind of masochism, why must the defiant be cast out?  Why must the masochistic response be compulsory to maintain ties of friendship and kinship?

Of course, this dynamic in relationships between and amongst individuals is magnified on a society-wide scale with regard to separatism in general.  The idea seems to be that if women as a class don’t seem to mind their mistreatment at the hands of males that separatists should likewise overlook male supremacy.  And our refusal to turn a blind eye to the transgressions deemed insignificant by the vast majority of the female population is also seen as justification for our complete vilification and ostracization.

5 Comments
  1. atheistwoman permalink
    December 16, 2009 6:23 am

    That came up a lot during the Polanski case, going to the victim who said she had moved on with her life to prove he need not be charged with anything, and what’s all the fuss?

    A large part of abuse is accepting that you did something to deserve it, that it is no big deal, and that perhaps it did not really happen at all. This is what society wants, and for the most part, what society gets from all women who accept with open arms male supremacists and their allies into their lives.

    Separatists are a shocking anomaly they would like to sweep under the carpet.

  2. December 16, 2009 5:57 pm

    There is a practicing solidarity in ostracization, but it always leads to ostracizing a woman (of any color) who refuses to submit to white-identified misogyny.

    If a woman (of any color) stands up to (insults, according to the white male-identified) a man (of any color), ranks are closed and that woman is squeezed out, more so if that man claims some type of oppression (fabricated or otherwise).

    If a black woman, black-identified or black-friendly woman stands up to (insults, according to the white-identified) a white identified person (of any color) the woman who stands up to (insults, according to the white male-identified) the white identified person is squeezed out, —ostracized.

    Twists and turns are constructed in order to maintain white male supremacy in disguise. For example, transexuality. These men are born men yet women who object to their antics are not supported. The people doing the squeezing out justify their squeezing out behavior by claiming that the men are being attacked, when all that is really happening is, a woman is not agreeing to their male white identified supremacy. Yet, the fact is, they are still men. Men as a class are forever privileged over women as a class. Period. And even if one were to accept that they are now women, they are mostly white, thus, more white women are being introduced to further oppressed black women, because, white women in a white male supremacist society are privileged over black women. But, the fact is, they are not women, but men with male privilege. Therefore, the people who are supporting the tyrannies (males who pretend to be women and make demands on women) are supporting men over women. In other words, they are maintaining the status quo. The twist and turn is to appear to be an activist. Activists have a reputation of being good people. Not so any more. The activist movement have been hi-jacked by white-males, white-male-identified supremacy. So the oppressors get to appear as the activists against oppression.

    Solidarity has a condition attached. That condition being, if anyone wants/expects support, that person must support and uphold white-male supremacy.

    And there are stupid people (yes stupid) people so eager to appear “good” and separate themselves from the “bad” people that they are too stupid to deconstruct the big picture and see how they are pawns reinforcing white male supremacy. I mean, you would think they would at least stop and ask themselves who/what defines good and bad and why they are so eager in being one over the other. What is in it for them?

  3. December 16, 2009 7:07 pm

    I had a person say to me “Mary, yah you’ve been through a lot and I’m sorry that [rape] happened to you but it doesn’t give you a right to be hateful in general” in response to my outrage at a 26 y o man who raped a 5 yo, got off on $10k bail and then raped a 3 yo. I’m hateful in general to be angry at men who rape and men who help them get away with it.

    Then I need to “let go” of the rape because “holding on to it” is only hurting me, he’s moved on and I need to too.

    I don’t have to tell you what gender this person was, but maybe I do. MALE.

    Women are always expected to just LOVE male ignorance and love everything done to us by males. Something is wrong with us when we’re angry about male crimes against women. We’re bitter, hateful in general, when we accurately express anger and disgust at their actions.

    • December 16, 2009 7:17 pm

      And you know there is something being inferred in that statement. It is saying if you had not been raped then you really should not have a problem with rape, so what is your problem? It didn’t happen to you? I believe it is misogynist as well. Meaning there seems to be an underlining implication that raped or not, women are the problem, because they have problems with the concept of rape.

      Also it is contributing all the world’s problems to you being a rape survivor, not the rapists. “If angry rape survivors were not so angry” vs. “If rapists would not rape.”

      “Your rape happened long ago, move on!”
      “You were not raped, so shut up.”

      What they should be saying is:

      Men rape.

  4. December 16, 2009 9:17 pm

    “What they should be saying is:

    Men rape.”

    ((((KITTY))))

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: