A friend and I are both reading A Utopia of Rules by David Graeber concurrently. In it Graeber mentions experiments where children are asked to write an essay about being the opposite gender. In each of the experiments young boys inevitably refuse to do the essays while young girls write long essays. Graeber concludes that this is uncovering an obvious hierarchy. I've never actually thought about what it would be like to be the opposite gender.
When I think of what it would be like to be a woman I don't know where to start other than to say there is clearly a hierarchy, we created long ago and continue to practice. Men accountable for this disaster deny the existence of said disaster and women go on practicing a sort of crippling form of self-censorship and control. So to me being a woman has much to do with identity. Its about an identity both denied to them and they deny themselves. Regicide of man seems to be in order, not for some sort of outward political reform but as an advance on the debt with vengeance aptly due to woman.
Our hegemony is one, that when we fail to deny is justified as being benevolent, the age old cry of the Hegemon over its subjugates. We talk of mutual interests, when describing women that are most like us, that we seek to condition in our invitations that we may continue making war on them. In our actions we do not deny that they are a threat to us. Justice depends on ones power to enforce it and hope is apt to be an expensive commodity. To be a woman must be something unlike being a man, that is the only thing I can say with certainty.
