While being attacked by a revengeful type of behavior, women’s relationship with their own selves took a revengeful turn in the form of self-criticism, mutilations, starvation, and low-self-esteem going as far as holding themselves responsible for adhering to the terms of abuse as if, “I need to learn a lesson” is a healthy relationship one should have with herself. And truly, what is a skipped meal in relation to the magnitude of abuse and what is in us that cannot use a little bit of improvement after a beat down? Is it not correct that revenge is oppression as it appears to describe a bad condition that could use a little bit of work to make better that which was made worse where that work is nothing short of another form of harm? When revenge has been the method of treatment from men towards women and when women have had their hands tied behind their backs in relation to their right to react, it appears that such revenge has manifested itself as the way women treat themselves while under abuse in order to show that indeed revenge is oppression.
To get back at someone is the nature of oppression as it is calculated and planned out where the reaction of women is also mapped out into leading her to get back at her own self. For the nature of oppression is racey (is similar to running a race) as men have over stepped the boundaries of common decency that is the woman….and if common decency has been violated, then surely it has experienced a taste of men’s revenge as for it to be harmed for the reason that it exists. Meaning: “how dare there be righteousness? and how dare there be justice?! I must teach these a lesson!” is the way of oppression as it stands offended by common decency. In that, there is no oppression that has been experienced that was not an act of revenge against the existence of righteousness itself. For we do not live in a world ruled by chaos and for every wrong, there is a right …as for every tit, there is a tat.
The struggle to survive is competitive as to leave women the target of competitiveness’ revenge. For who is better: this man or that man? The best way to settle the score is to divide women up amongst these men as to take that which would have been one man punching another and turn it into a settlement under which each man marries a woman of his choice. Is this not men projecting the revenge they would have otherwise had against each other onto women? For competition is a marathon of one person beating another to the punch under which all must make it to the finish line before revenge gets to be clearly defined in order for one to proudly say, “even revenge did not have a chance” as to feel competition to be an acceptable manner of conduct. Let me beat you up before you do VS let me wait for you to beat me up and then I will beat you up: both are the same if people are conducting themselves in a manner that guarantees people being brought down—hence, competition as a revengeful conduct without merits. Indeed, looking at the food chain, it becomes easy to see why time is an aspect of competition that puts revenge to shame as waiting around to be beaten up first is not a smart option for those who view intelligence as mayhem itself.
To seek revenge is something that women have been forbidden from doing although the option is open to all other people and all animals. For we have driven past the point of being harmed into a point where harm is no longer an appropriate term to use—hence, abuse. And the systematic nature of abuse makes its repetitiveness into an act of revenge as if the person harming us is seeking to redeem themselves into making sure that things work out their way continuously where if one starts off with forcing women into marriage, the next revengeful step is to have them feel so sickened by it to a point where they would rather prostitute themselves. Has not our reaction to men’s revenge only been allowed if it was just another form of revenge? Hence, men’s rules of conduct are nothing short of bits and pieces of revengeful acts glued together. For when women were subjected to marriage against their will, that was an act of revenge under which the reaction to it is feeling insulted if a woman refused… under which the rule becomes that she needs to be put to death. Revenge needs to be accepted, respected, and appreciated as if we are the 1/2 inch area in men’s minds under which that feeling takes over the rest of his brain in vengeance.
Revenge is pain felt unmended and revenge is the pain that is felt while an oppressor looks on whether revenge was acted upon or not within the terms of understanding that no person wants to be abused. Hence, if no one wants to be abused, revenge is a retaliation against that. And as such, when abused, how shall a person retaliate to that abuse? A dead end in relation to logic states such to be a limitation as to give women the right to no longer entertain any further interactions with men within such situation. Meaning: the question that asks, “why did women not defend themselves?” is the same question that asks, “why are women not as revengeful as they NEED to be?” upon which such question becomes a limitation even to logic itself as to say that the answer is better found if the question was never made valid. For both of these questions are based on the absence of abuse where the fact that abuse actually happened is not within the rounds of having enough correctness to validate the actual question although such has been found to be enough to validate the act itself against women in real life due to men. Meaning: “I hate you” may not make sense but we have experienced it more than any sense it is allowed to make in a sentence. As such, such questions have importance in relation to us as people more so than they are otherwise valid questions ( “women” plus “defending” PLUS “herself”: wow, that is a mighty whole lot of woman and herself for one to bring that up in relation to a question related to abuse where not much of herself was allowed to be, right?)… hence, the idea of “being the bigger person”. Why did women not defend themselves? The bigger person, I guess (better left at that).
To give one a taste of their own medicine is adultery in perspective as to have our perspective be infected with the disease of abuse into normalizing our perception of such ideas as for that to be the thing that needs to be medicated first. Meaning: “to give one a taste of their own medicine”? what kind of statement is that? Sure as hell, it should not make that much sense to us as human beings. Yet, insistence upon insistence better be that you are the one who is responsible for the fines. And when insistence upon insistence is projected onto women by men, then is insistence of such manner not an act under which we lose our ability to recognize vengeance as the person who is given their daily dose of medication is not the one who is inflecting others with sickness? Meaning: such statements are normalized due to the fact that we have lost sensing correctness as a default state where wrongs have been insisted upon more so than we have ever seen right as now “taste of own medicine” is expected and meaningful. Yet, when such is expected and meaningful, how are we to recognize that we have been treated in that manner? —-Why? We do not see much better treatments happening.
Revenge is indeed as the lord is our witness while our hands are tied behind our backs feeling a sense of wrong in being wronged where the provocation of us needing to revenge ourselves is partly responsible for these feeling as for us to feel wrong in being wronged due to how being wronged is demanding of us to revenge ourselves unnaturally to who we are as people—-in that, revenge is indeed being demanded from us as a woman feels just as bad as men already having thoughts under which it is obvious that submission is not the correct reaction as she is forced to submit nevertheless. Hence, why feel as if you are a bad person, woman? Because when treated in this manner, there is no such thing as a bad person as for that to excuse men more than it excuses us…and when treated in this fashion, there is no such thing as maintaining a correct conduct despite us which is a thing that excuses men more so than excuses us if merely for the fact that we have been forced to correct our selves many times over as any thought that comes in standing our grounds from here on out becomes another form of correction we cannot bear to enforce on ourselves. … and when treated in this fashion, what is wrong becomes the right thing to do as we stand complaining of it being a wrong to a point where it is better if it was just a right. And when feeling a sense of having had enough as for revenge to be the right thing, are we saying that men could possibly have had their reasons to treat us in this manner? Such limits have been reached and crossed into creating a new reality that is mind altering and self defeating under which no one is allowed to say that peace has been anything but a non-existent thought that does not have the right to redeem its own self given that a sharp sword is apparently needed.
When revenge is the method of treatment, then revenge has been accounted for by men on or behalf as to be part of the reason why they have abused us, In that, due to the physical differences that exist between men and women, men have accounted for the fact that it would be difficult for women to seek revenge…a thing they used as an encouragement to abuse us. Hence, our right to react was turned into our right to seek revenge…under which we ourselves can become the ones to blame for lacking in the physical ability to “carry out revenge against them”. Therefore, the revenge that men have used is not only their own but they have also used the revenge that they have made out of our right to react. This is proven to be true by the fact that proper reaction becomes inapplicable in the midst of abuse as the proper reaction becomes one under which violence is the only way to stop the abuse as women are not able to win that fight. For when one predetermines the correct reaction that another person needs to have, then one is making use of their ability to react as much as they are using their own ability to react. MEANING: If I force you into a position where you need to sell your home in order that I may buy it cheap, then it is similar to me selling your home where that says that my behavior is not sufficient on its own but it requires that your behavior becomes my behavior as well. Such abuse is nothing short of violence against women as it physically takes over their conduct even when we are carrying out an action.
As I know that most women would rather not seek revenge against men as they would much rather react in a healthier manner, let us not forget that this choice in regards to whether a woman would rather seek revenge or not, is not presented to women for the first time. Meaning: the end of the rope here is taking us to a place where we are merely trying to say, “I would rather react than revenge” as if we are being asked to choose between the two for the first time ever having experienced no abuse at all which shows the amount of distortion that men have inflected us with that is so far from our nature that it is just stupefying. In that, it is not our choice to pick between a life where we are revengeful or a life where we act peacefully and appropriately. That choice was made on our behalf by men as for us to be find that seeking revenge is against women…yet, is this not what abuse has demanded from men against us for that to state that men do not mind it?
Hence, when the day comes that we find ourselves in a position that allows for us to say, “unacceptable is an understatement” would it not be revengeful if men turn around and say, “this means that you are seeking revenge”? Meaning: when it comes time for men to face justice, are they not going to accuse us of being revengeful as to assert the need for us to be more forgiving? Predictability in relation to such reaction, however, makes it an aspect of men’s revenge… in order for us to not allow room for persuasion given that the chicken has been killed and cooked and eaten as it is too late to try to convince the butcher not to kill it (aka our lives are not disposable for us to rejoice when “have it your way” finally comes to an end as if we are truly worthy of hell otherwise) and given that men have made us pay upfront for the chicken to be killed against our will (aka. revenge says “this is for a wrong you have done against me” and we have paid upfront for that without having wronged men in order for the terms of revenge to remain valid all the way up until women earning the price they have paid. Meaning: men cannot ask for forgiveness because the terms of revenge will remain valid until women wrong them in the same manner they have accused us of doing which we paid the price for….meaning meaning meaning: If you eat a burger, you take in about 300 calories.. to burn these calories off you need to work out…. if you seek revenge, you are saying, “these women have harmed me”… to burn these calories, women need to have truly harmed men in order for that revenge to go away given that we have paid the price for (or eaten) that burger).