When privacy is invaded, as men have done many times and throughout time, it becomes an attack against the selfhood of a woman as it is an attack on her identity and independence. What is privacy but a thing exaggerated the more it is violated? And so in relation to the privacy issues that the world may soon be facing the way women have faced (hahaha—evil laugh), it is to be noted that he who spies on a woman, has already considered her as an object that he owns. Meaning: privacy works backwards as to say that if you are willing to watch me from far, I am already put in a position where the world has violated me from the depths of my sexual organs as a woman “inferiore”. Hence, when it comes to the government “spying” on people, it is understandable that they have first governed us up to that position of needing to be spied on as many men have continued to commit crimes that justify such thing as correct only for them to pick on one or two out of the crowds as to give the rest of them a hand wash after taking a dump (meaning: all men violate our privacy, many men commit crimes, and only a few men are monitored as if that is the way to address any issue at all). And it is also understandable that even if probable cause is needed in order for the government to spy on citizens, that such “monitoring” is merely an aspect of that “suspicion” and not a resolution to an issue. If you suspect someone is doing something, you monitor them… it is a thing that resolves your suspicion but I am very suspicious of many men and I do not go out to resolve my suspicion in that fashion. Yet, many men are suspicious of women and even in the name of “personal security” they would monitor the entire residential area as “suspicion” would become an aspect of our entire life that must be verified at all times since “we do not know when our suspicions would become true” and despite the fact that such statement pertains to the opposite as us not having to be suspicious at all since one has accepted, by that point, the terms under which we exist (Meaning: if you do not know when your suspicions will become true, you do not have anything to be suspicious about). Hence, if the government wants to monitor people, then who it should monitor is an aspect of “suspicion” based on that which we have accepted to gain from and, therefore, keep; when it should not have been accepted at all. For example, “let us accept how these people treat women because it gives us an advantage with our women… and now let us monitor them since truly they are just dangerous”–this is not proper more than it is “let us stretch out these few seconds remaining in the game as to make them last 10 hours” (or in other words: wait until this brings us trouble (the way the man did to the fig tree in Jesus’ parable) where after 4 years, if it bears no fruit, let us cut it). Blah blah blah blah blah…and then: HOW DARE THEY?! LET US WATCH THEM NONSTOP FROM HERE ON OUT!!!
Monitoring people, due to it being an attack on the selfhood of a person, is not something that would ever create a mental abuse before it creates a physical one. MEANING: IF ONE FEELS ABUSED BY SUCH MONITORING, THEY WILL NOT FEEL IT AS A MENTAL ABUSE BUT THEY WILL FEEL IT AS A PHYSICAL ABUSE. If I am in my house and someone is monitoring me using a camera, for example, then someone is there with me in a physically inappropriate manner which is a physical abuse. Sexism is similar in being a physical abuse of a mental nature in the form of strict rules of conduct that restrict a woman to a point where she starts to act as if men are watching her all the time as to not break those rules even if no one is around. Such would be a physical abuse/violence against that woman even if no one is physically attacking her at that time. And when such monitoring is not justified or if it is done in an abusive manner, then this physical abuse is nothing short of violence itself. Because here is how that goes: How the hell am I to get you off of my body in such case as you are there all the time given that you are not there too? “GET OFF OF ME”: You can yell it at the empty room as much as you like to no avail. Hence, such would take physical violence and break it down to feed the woman whatever it is equivalent to in a raw mental and physical sense. In that, gaslighting has a physical abuse element pertaining to one not being able to free herself from the abuser who is messing with the gas light in this room and that room where all she wants is for the thing to get off of her body and leave her alone at no avail. Such abuse that attacks without physical evidence creates hysteria and further delusions as it is indeed a form of physical violence. For if one was to say something to a gaslighter, it would be, “JUST LEAVE HER ALONE!!!” as one may feel an urge to get physical with that person as to push them away.
Surveillance abuse is an attack on the dignity of the person. The dignity of a person is not owned by another person but it is a feeling that the selfhood of a person is starting to be harassed into being owned by another person. Hence, in such case as monitoring people and women in particular, a woman will feel that she is being harassed out of her own self as she seeks to avoid doing certain things in order to find peace. And such thing can be seen as similar to putting a dog collar on another person as for it to send an electric shock whenever the doggy tries to bark too loudly or whenever the doggy merely thinks about taking a piss on the carpet—as you see, an attack on dignity is what that would constitute. For if one was to look at prisoners in Abu Ghraib (the image to the left),one would see the mental state of a person who is abusively monitored to be one who feels like she is standing on a narrow box—which is the position of being looked at for error without merits—and to be one who feels like her selfhood does not matter as all that matters is that she is just a person as that becomes enough to deem her as one who is capable of doing enough wrong to be monitored just for the sake of it and for the sake of finding it. Therefore, it is to be noted, that no man can monitor his place of residence during this time of age when women are still being subjected to sexism, without that being an attack on the dignity of women residing within it. For to say that such attack is coming from “outside strangers” does not remove it from being an attack on her dignity despite men justifying it as “well intentioned” given that the definition of “well intentioned” is not inclusive of that as such monitoring is done for the sake of those who are not well intentioned at all (are women seen as well intentioned and what does well intentioned mean to a man when it comes to the conduct of a woman? and does it matter if this is done for the sake of your husband or for the sake of strangers who might be a danger onto you?) —-as we also need to understand that being ill intentioned is not a human trait and neither is it an option as it is that particular aspect which allows for one to feel such monitoring to not be an attack on her dignity as it is attributed to why such monitors are placed… although the “strangers” aspect gets the credit for the “bad intent” in how the situation is reasoned. Meaning: Why are you placing cameras all over the place? bad intent is for the strangers and my natural feelings that tell me that people are not allowed to have bad intent is credited to the husband/boyfriend/partner—hence, making a woman feel like she is fine with such monitoring. What I am speaking about thus far is the abuse against women by the men in their lives in the name of “keeping them safe”. NOT AN ACCEPTABLE WAY OF KEEPING ANYONE SAFE BECAUSE THE EXCEPTION IN THE MIND IS ONE PERTAINING TO PERSONAL CHOICES AND NOT CHOICES OTHERS MAKE. Is my safety worth it? And I say that safety becomes a raw idea if it requires this much security. Meaning: if one needs a gun to walk outside safely, then we are speaking about a battle field. So yes, safety is important but how important is that safety is shown by how much more security measures a person must take—where in having to be monitored all the time, one is saying that your safety is not really that important at all and has not been seen as important much… in addition, it appears that one is already the victim of such dynamic. As this may take us to the topic of income equality and social equality in order for us to say that a violation of human equality is a direct attack against all women no matter where they are at, I will leave that for another paper to discuss. Yet, as we speak about Saudi Arabia where until recently women needed a male chaperon wherever they go, we can see that women in the west are put in that position through the monitoring activities that men may subject them to.
Surveillance is a confession of a crime caught on tape. And surveillance is a confession of a crime in presenting evidence of bad treatment that has been belated in being addressed or fixed. Surveillance is not just a mental abuse or physical abuse; but it is a selfhood abuse as each person is supposed to be one who is in charge of making sure they are doing what they are supposed to. Each person is in charge of their own self and good relationships replace vigorous surveillance techniques. Bad relationships: should they be put to a stop through surveillance? And if surveillance has the power to end the worst of outcomes, then surely it is equivalent to putting up a physical fight and winning it. Just by watching over yourselves there would be no problems: right?! True…watch over yourselves to see that bad relationships are the opposite of you watching over your own selves.
Safety should equal default security. Or, in other words, one should not need a pocket knife or a gun as an added security for them to feel safe. We have a group of people (black people) who are not living in safe conditions. We cannot carry a gun in order for us to say, “we are equal to them as we live in the same conditions they do proven by how we need to carry a gun” (we cannot replace the ghetto with a gun as then to say “we all live in the ghetto and black people are fine”). That would not be a solution. And same thing for not wanting women to be attacked in their own homes: we cannot continue this inequality and this sexism as to then put up a few cameras in order that we may become peeping-tom-onto-our-own-selves so that we can say, “I watch women too…and guess which woman I love to watch? ME!!” just to be at peace as we feel that if all of us are sexist and all of us love injustice, then we can present ourselves as an equal threat to those who may attack us in that manner…where at the end of it all, the victim becomes the criminal and the criminal becomes the one who was just trying to protect himself. And when the victim becomes the criminal and the criminal becomes one who was merely trying to protect himself—all wrapped up in a humiliating situation—is that not yet another attack on our dignity?