Limitation of Agreements

The limitation of agreement is reached when one person agrees to enforce an agreement onto another person against their will—as such becomes the definition of imposition. Disagreement of such magnitude is not within the rounds of “agreements” despite the fact that “disagreement” seems to be related to “agreements” given that “disagreement” can either be the opposite of agreement or against agreement where imposition is against agreement as a way of opposing it in becoming the opposite of ot. Hence, such disagreement that has been imposed upon women to agree to live by against our will, is not something that women have agreed to live by at all. And so this limitation is a limitation precisely due to the fact that an “agreement” is what makes sense and an “agreement” is what is easier than disagreements….so much easier that it actually does not sit well within a woman’s mind to continue to disagree as she is often led to live in accordance to the terms of imposition despite it being against her will due to the fact that the will itself functions on the bases of agreements being the norm.

Disagreements happen all the time but not as a backdrop and a foundation upon which one’s life needs to be lived. And men have subjected women to such gross form of disagreements under which her life has been marked up for her to find herself to be the only thing erased out of the final contract that is her life. To say that men and women can today come to an agreement is not logical neither is it sensible due to the fact that men stand at a place of disagreement that has no connection to the place where agreements lie. Meaning: might as well say that “disagreements” is “taking a shower” (or whatever words you want to stick in there) as to show it to be not of the same nature as agreements. MEANING MEANING MEANING: If I agree to go on a trip with you somewhere, that is one thing. If I disagree, more than likely I will not be going on a trip anywhere at all. We are standing at a place of disagreement enforced through violence and abuse in order for that to serve as evidence that the place of agreement is no where near where we are standing. It is indeed similar to agreements being a vending machine under which one needs to put coins to get a soda and where disagreements is similar to having to cough—to try to make the two things agree would assert: let the cough agree with the cough and let the soda agree with the soda as the two things need no dispute and no agreements to be enforced. Where is the agreement we have in relation to the abuse we have suffered in order to have an established connection to “correct” a situation that was meant to last forever? And so, such lack of logic, if ignored becomes merely another form of abuse we would be asked to accept proudly in attempting to come to the terms of agreement needed for reconciliation. Yet, when something contradicts with something else, there is a truth that is demanding our attention in its regards. A truth that asks women to pay attention to the aspect of disagreements not being compatible with agreements in regards to one’s own life as we, women, cannot turn a blind eye to that truth that we have neither created nor asked to be destroyed just so that men are happy and pleased as if we have not done enough to please them against our will already.

We have an agreement that needs to be formed…yet, this “needs to be formed” is just the default of our existence and it does not pertain to a group of people having been abused for centuries to begin with in total disregards to that default. What men want to do is wait for a befitting time in order for them to stop abusing us as for that to form an agreement. Yet, again, this “agreement” is formed by the fact that this earth exists. Hence, an agreement needs to be formed and the lord said, “let there be light and there was light” and then the lord said. “let there be water and land and there was water and land” and then the lord said, “let there be a man and a woman and there they were”—that was the lord forming an agreement. Meaning: we are not here strangers who need to confirm our existence as legitimate as that becomes an aspect of abuse that begs the question in regards to who the hell is on this earth. To exist on this earth, we exist in regards to an agreement and a civility and not in regards to a barbaric abusive set of commandments. In that, to form an agreement– as an agreement is in need of being formed —begs the question: why? are we the lord almighty to need to reestablish this earth as if it has not been established? (meaning: men are not the lord almighty who are still working on this earth and have not yet finished up as we wait around… the earth was already made and the behavior of men is against that).

Years of sexism needs to be seen as against the nature of this world lest it is okay to murder one another. And as such, sexism is a disagreement that has been allowed to run its course whichever way the wind has blown as to have its way with women more so than women can say that they have truly lived. Such disagreement is outside the limitation of agreements as I will show proof of it being so:

In relation to life itself, to agree is to live in harmony and to disagree has a limitation in relation to its applicability to agreements as long as it does not indefinitely disrespect the aspect that says “agreements are better” (Am speaking about agreements in relation to people amongst each other). And as men have gained much from sexism under which that becomes a thing that has allowed disagreements to be better than agreements, then agreements is disregarded and disrespected as to say, “agreements as a concept has been disregarded”. And when agreements have been disregarded, we can say that “disagreements” are no longer a casual aspect under which people are trying to settle their differences, but “disagreements” are now a whole other thing that is made to flourish more so than agreements are and despite the fact that agreements allow plenty of room for people to disagree under its umbrella and despite the fact that the nature of existence is based on all of its elements coming to an agreement as to be interconnected. For it is nature that water at times evaporates and at times becomes solid where sometimes it remains in one state never changing…yet, it is a whole other issue when water evaporates and comes down to stone women as to call them, “whores”.

The sexual agreements (or consent) that happens between men and women today are invalidated by the aspect that they demand more sexual engagement from women when all that women have been allowed to do is related to sexual engagement and sexual withdrawal. And the validation of such consent has been related to the fact that the mind of the woman is comparing it to the abuse under which one cares not to get her opinion. This “cares not to get her opinion” is gross injustice as it is more logical to say, “skufhgygfkjslkdfjndf hgsdjkfhns” given that the understanding of such phrase has shown “skufhgygfkjslkdfjndf hgsdjkfhns” to be within the rounds of such injustice’s logical validity as we have come to understand its meaning through the violence that is an aspect of its sexist philosophy. And now we are being asked to consent as to say, “skufhgygfkjslkdfjndf hgsdjkfhns” is what we agree with instead of us being forced to do it against our will. Indeed, an agreement is not something that men have been interested in and neither shall it come out of an, “oh now that you have mentioned it” given that “mentioned it” is the lives of women and not just an IT that is similar to one having forgotten to take out the trash. Opportunity for reconciliation is not brought up out of the blue when it is in regards to one beating up another today. Where is this “out of the blue” lest it is the face of the woman punched? Meaning: of course men will be ready to conciliate when the time comes that a woman has been beaten up too badly to allow for this, “out of the blue”—as such, “out of the blue” is an encouragement to harm women and reconciliation is not accepted under such condition as such condition is an abusive state in and of itself.

Let us not minimize the worth of life and the value of life as to tell ourselves that we are the owners of men’s “another chance” when many of us today have never been given a chance at all. The value of life is not in dismissing the fact that a chance is not given in relation to abuse given that abuse is that which deprives one from a chance. What else deprives one from a chance other than abuse? And have men not deprived us from a chance precisely by abusing us as to show that when a person abuses another, it would be right to not give him another chance? Yet, again, abuse is not within the rounds of our nature as women…meaning, that even if we do wrong, our mentality is not measuring of it in relation to the gain-of-one-person-taking-on-a-life-of-its-own-for-centuries-at-the-cost-of-others-today-and-others-to-come. We may fight and argue with each other but the mentality of abuse is not something we are mentally equipped to plan and carry out as men have carried out their abuses against us relentlessly. What have we done wrong (and “nothing” is not an acceptable answer)? Is that not what men forced us to live by: Us having done nothing wrong being not an acceptable answer to receive that which another answer may entail? In that, men have asked the question that we have only experienced to have one answer: when abused, it is expected that chances are not given as such has worked very well for men’s taste thus far.

The assertion of a “disagreement such as sexism is not mendable” is precisely what sexism has asserted against us. Why not agree to that when, afterall, we have been forced to live out what it means for one to make such statement due to the violence subjected against us? Meaning: why is it okay for men to assert the statement and enforce the statement that says, “a disagreement such as sexism is not mendable” as they carry out their sexism against us as if there is no solution even in the sights of our dreams? And why is it not okay for a woman to say that statement when we have been the ones forced to pay for what it means for one to say it? Have we not paid as to be entitled to say, “a disagreement such as sexism is not mendable”? Or shall we pass and cut our losses when justice and the truth says that men have crossed the line in relation to the truth and us?

In that, reconciliation with men is not acceptable to the truth nor to justice nor to logic nor to common sense as these are not a place of abuse and neither were these the place that gave men the opportunity to subject us to sexism as we need to make sure that such is stated loud and clear.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *