We grow up hearing that gender is “just how things are.” Many people still assume masculinity and femininity follow naturally from biology. That assumption holds only when gender is observed at the surface level. When we look closer—across history, across cultures, across experiences—the neat divide begins to blur. What appears to be an innate truth reveals itself as a social script written and re‑written to fit particular times and power structures. Contemporary research distinguishes sex (biological traits) from gender (social and structural expectations) and emphasizes that their influence on human behaviour and health must be investigated empirically rather than assumed[1]. Recognizing gender as constructed does not trivialize it; it makes its construction visible and therefore contestable.
There is a point where “mismanagement” stops being a useful word.
At a certain point, you are no longer looking at a country that simply got a few things wrong. You are looking at a system that has become so attached to its own cruelty, so committed to its own bad logic, that it keeps choosing the version that hurts people most and then acting like this is just the weather. It is not weather. It is architecture. Extraction is not a glitch in the American experiment; it is the original blueprint. I need people to stop pretending otherwise. Because even if you strip all the morality out of it—even if you look at this in the coldest capitalist terms possible—the whole thing still does not make sense. That is the part that should embarrass everybody in charge. Not just that it is cruel, but that it is stupid. It is structurally stupid. It is the kind of stupid that should have been ruled out by basic survival instinct ten years ago, and yet here we are, still being told to clap for it. A society cannot treat human beings like expendable fuel and then act baffled when the engine starts failing. You cannot demand endless output from people you deliberately starve of healthcare, education, rest, and security, and then blame those people for not producing miracles on command. That is not governance. That is an abusive relationship with a national anthem. 
I don’t understand, and I don’t think I’m meant to. There is a specific kind of exhaustion that comes with trying to make sense of a world designed to keep its gears turning at the expense of your own sanity. We are conditioned to accept the grinding noise of systemic failure as background hum, taught to look past the chains on our own perception so we can keep playing our parts in the simulation. I’ve reached a point where I can no longer ignore the friction between the humanity I know exists and the cold, mechanical reality we are forced to inhabit.
There are a million things we tell ourselves when our emotions start to surface, especially when the timing is inconvenient. It’s easy to swallow it down like a too-big pill and to keep swallowing the phantom lump in our throats, because we busy ourselves with obligations. We prioritize our lives in such a way that puts our needs on the back burner, low heat and apply just enough attention that we don’t have to worry about it burning the kitchen down (metaphorically and literally, in some cases). It becomes second nature to remember we even have needs, never mind how to meet them; we’re doing everything we can just to survive another day in a world that wasn’t built for us.
Every day, a new parallel surfaces, begging for recognition, acknowledgement, and an end to the cycle. Democratic erosion, National Socialist propaganda that blatantly targets minority groups (e.g., autism, LGBTQIA+ individuals, non-White people, non-Christians, and women), and religious extremism are all too familiar in American politics today. The rise of White Christian Nationalism and other extremist ideologies echo the not-so-distant past, reminding us that our education system has always been manipulated to placate those most averse to a liberal agenda. Instead, we see a whitewashed curriculum overhaul that minimizes the struggles and oppression marginalized communities have faced throughout history. This gross perversion of history—which emphasizes American exceptionalism and exemplifies democratic erosion—further limits access to diverse perspectives and critical thinking, resurrecting a totalitarian rule that drips with patriarchal illusion. Right alongside this stark decline in social progress, democratic norms dwindle through voter suppression and election manipulation, the rampant spread of misinformation by those in power, and a multitude of discriminatory executive orders.
Extremism is on the rise. The too-frequent argument is that “it’s both sides,” which may be true—only if we ignore the fact that not only were right-wing extremists responsible for nineteen of twenty-two extremist-related murders in 2020, but investigations of domestic terrorism more than doubled over the next two years.
Assumptions are made, by everyone, from time to time. Some are correct—if someone works at the local grocer, it’s pretty safe to assume they live nearby. But assuming to know someone simply because you know their name or, worse, because you know the people who sired them says a fair bit more about you than it does about them. Sure, in a perfect world everyone would share a strong, healthy relationship with their ‘family’—unfortunately, that is not often the case, and people see what they want to see. Many people who believe they have healthy relationships with their relatives fail to recognize deeply rooted co-dependent dynamics and generational trauma cycles. In many cases, they have to do mental gymnastics to justify the less than healthful interactions or core beliefs passed down from one generation to the next. This is evident in the way those same people always have some condescending remark or an attempt at insult in rebuttal, for being confronted or proven wildly misinformed.
That’s not to say that what they want to see is what they want to exemplify, but it is to say that most people seem to find it easier to subconsciously choose false narratives that support their own perception of reality.
According to my explorations on the topic, sexual victimization has been around since the dawn of time. Today, “sexual victimization is highly prevalent in the United States, with 63% of women and 24% of men reporting experiences of sexual victimization in their lifetime” (Miller, 2017). Research published in the Journal of the American Heart Association finds that sexual violence is not only common but that survivors of sexual assault and workplace sexual harassment are at an increased risk of hypertension (States News, 2022). This research was supported by several other institutions. In today’s world, it is also important to understand that victimization is not solely a physical act. Image-based sexual abuse has also been documented, its “prevalence varies, owing to differences in definitions, criteria, and samples used” (Pedersen et al., 2023).
In 1977, the Supreme Court of Washington ruled that in a self-defense case, a woman is entitled to have the jury consider her actions from her perception.
1 in 4 American women will likely experience domestic violence in their lifetime.
Noel Rivers-Schutte
Seton Hall Law
Battered woman syndrome. Not included in the DSM, but still a very real pattern of symptoms and behaviours that have been attributed to persistent violence from their male intimate partner(s). In some cases, this can result in a lethal dose of temporary insanity wherein the female victim may retaliate against her abuser. Of course I am paraphrasing my own understanding as it pertains to relevant case exploration. Although I stand by the assertion that there is a clear double standard between the sexes that has been created and fortified by a patriarchal entity, the last quarter of a century has brought some undeniable social progress. Twenty five years ago, society denied that sex workers can be raped altogether – today, women/femmes are still dismissed and derided for the actions of the men in their lives. So, yes, things have improved to a point. Female adults can now own property, and have their own bank accounts and credit cards. However, we’ve also obviously backtracked on reproductive rights and such. This isn’t about women’s rights, though I am certain that the patriarchy has played a role in the skewed perceptions of women who kill their husband(s). Of course not all women who kill their husband(s) are genuine in their claims, as criminals are notoriously dishonest. Betty Lou Beets is just such a controversial case.
Question:
Where do men get off thinking they get to decide what it means to be a woman? Where did the audacity originate? Because this isn’t a new phenomenon, it has been happening for twice as long as relevant history; it is considerably longer if you want to get into it. Somehow, they speak for us, decide what is and isn’t acceptable, and design gender role philosophies that nurture their lack of desire to grow. It wasn’t all that long ago that they tainted all that is feminism, so much so that internal misogyny still to this day is deeply embedded in our society. But, seriously, where did it start? What has been the point? Men like to say that it was for protection. Still, when you consider the existence of female Viking warriors [confirmed by genomics], the idea of needing men for anything outside breeding becomes less believable. |
Sheena MonsterThey/Them/Theirs 
Naming the things that society works hardest to ignore, to reclaim the humanity stripped by systemic deception.
FeaturesCategories
All
Book Drive
The Page Turner
Show Your Support |
RSS Feed