An incorrect relationship is a relationship under which men have subjected women to a hostility and where they have attacked her autonomy and her right to self-determination as they have also subjected that very same self-determination right to the dynamics of dominance/submission. Hence, in this incorrect relationship, men forced women to be dependent on them as they imposed their will on her.
A correct relationship is an autonomy based relationship where each person acts in accordance to their own free will as the person is not imposed to a submissive state of existence and where one is not subjected to the hostility of other people’s dominance. This means that such relationship is a relationship that values independence and it is the bases of what makes a relationship. In that, we can say that a correct relationship is a relationship.. and an incorrect relationship is not a relationship due to the hostility it has by the way one “relates” to another.
As women move towards independence (or crawl slowly towards it on our hands and knees as if we were lost in the desert and we have just seen what looks like water as we hope it is not just another mirage), we need to address a whole new issue that is created by this “incorrect relationship” that men subjected us to: The problem is that these two relationships are not independent from each other. Meaning: it is assumed that autonomy is correct and that one does not need to be in a “correct relationship” for it to be so as one is assumed to have always been in a correct relationship always. In addition, it is assumed that independence is not related to dependence via violence and hostility as the line that is drawn between two things is not supposed to be “violence” itself and neither is it supposed to be “violence erased”. In that, if we were to draw the line connecting men and women in the past until today, we would have a line called, “violence”…that line is supposed to be a line called, “a relationship”. Now if we go forwards in time, we need to use that same line throughout time… but what we would have to do, is “cheat” in such manner as to erase the word
“violence” and replace it with the word “relationship” as if nothing happened.
Liliyan——-John (this says: liliyan is connected to John)
The past says: Liliyan-violence-john(this says: there is a violence going on between John and Liliyan)…. the past is not how people connect….
——————-: This is the ONLY acceptable line to use to connect people no matter what whether in the past or today or the future. So how are we going to go back in time and cheat on the exam?
————————–: this means there is more than one person on this earth
-violence-violence-violence-violence: is not a chain acceptable but a chain reaction.
How can we…oh just how…. how can we bring forth such line that did not exist and pretend that it did?! How are we women going to save the universe as to not make it a violent place in the past when we were not allowed to do much in it as we live here today and not in the past but kinda?!
Hence, in looking at “relationship” advancement, there is no such thing. A relationship should have always been a relationship. Not only that, but independence has its very own terms. I mean: I understand that men had their own terms but so does independence. The merging of these two relationships…or the advancement of our rights as to “get over” the past…is not going to work for independence since it had its own terms that do not allow for the removal of the autonomy that a person has the right to always have. I mean, you may be able to convince me and her and her otherwise… but independence exists as a dynamic of its own that rejects the incorrect relationship to be a part of its make up whether from the past or today or in the future.
So, as men are planning a forget and forgive get-together, independence is planning to run-away from home as if her parents have planned an arranged marriage she does not agree to. To impose ourselves onto independence is to alter its terms to befit the conditions that men have subjected us to in the past. And to impose ourselves onto independence is to not remove the violence from the past but it is to insult the universe by pretending that no violence existed. We, afterall, were not the ones who suffered and died and struggled although we are ones who are still abused enough to understand… And what we understand is that a woman has been turned into a group gesture and that a man has acted in violence in relation to that grouping. Can we abandon the idea of a “woman” when she is more than an idea? Meaning: can we forget that women are bundled up in accordance to men as to look at the other women and say, “I have no idea what it means to be a woman in accordance to men!” For the “forget and forgive” party bus has already picked us up as it drove us around men’s town where prostitution is heavy and abortions happen around the clock so much so that beating the baby out is an acceptable method of ejection… can we get out of the bus as if nothing happened because we are nice people?! I mean, I do not know about you, but that has nothing to do with being NICE.
For let us take a look at the difference between independence and dependence/hostility: it is the difference between intelligence and stupidity…. it is the difference between comprehension and incoherence… it is the difference between having an interest and being dragged along… it is the difference between life and death as the will of the person is not to be dragged along in the same manner one drags a coffin to the grave. And while I am going at it, let me add another thing: the affiliation women have with men can never remove the hostility of the past. What that means is that we will always have that affiliation (or point of relating…albeit even if we were to say “in the past men did x, y ,z”). And this shows us that the terms of independence do not agree with the “get over it” that men are asking of women to accept.