In pondering all matters men and women, misogyny, patriarchy and trying to entertain Ultimate Solutions for women regarding male parasitism, I keep coming back to the Wasp and the Ladybird analogy I used in my post about the Samburu women. Above is a video that gives you an idea of what I’m referring to. There is a lot about the “relationship” between the Dinocampus Coccinellae Wasp and the Ladybird that are eerily similar to the “relationship” between men and women, “relationship” being a gaslighting euphemism for a parasitic dynamic. There are a lot of parallels when looking at the Ladybird/Wasp interactions compared to Women/Men interactions.
Here are a few examples that come to mind…though there are many more I can’t quite articulate…..This list is by no means exhaustive:
-The parasite-wasp is corporally dependent on the Ladybird-host for it’s own propagation, it must get it’s DNA into the host body in order for the parasite to survive as a species. Men are genetically and corporally dependent on women for their own propagation, men must get their DNA into women’s body in order for men to survive as a species.
-The parasite has evolved physical, chemical, and strategic tools to procure a host/victim and to coercively inject it’s DNA into the host’s body, forcing the host to incubate and birth more parasites. Men have evolved physical, chemical, social, psychological, systemic, and other strategic tools to procure and control women and girls, and to coercively inject men’s DNA into female bodies, forcing women to incubate and birth more men (and future victims).
-The host faces tremendous peril in the process of carrying parasite’s offspring to term, risking death or permanent debilitating corporal damage. Women face tremendous peril in the process of carrying men’s offspring to term, risking death or permanent debilitating corporal damage.
-Vital resources are extracted from the host’s body by the incubating parasite offspring. Vital resources are extracted from women’s bodies by gestating and nursing offspring.
-The parasite faces no corporal risks in the creation of it’s next generation. Men face no corporal risks in the creation of their next generation.
-The parasite employs a plethora of sophisticated tactics to attract, trap, confuse, deceive, violate, paralyze, anesthetize, hold captive, and tether its host to ensure maximum resource extraction. Men employ a plethora of sophisticated tactics to attract, trap, confuse, deceive, violate, paralyze, anesthetize, hold captive, and disable its host to ensure maximum resource extraction.
-When a host is held captive with a parasite (such as the video above), the host will be subjected to repeated victimization by the same parasite and by subsequent parasites birthed by the host, continuing until the host perishes. When women are held captive with men (“families” in “homes”, and sex-slavery), women and girls are subject to being victimized repeatedly by the same man or different men (father, uncle, grandfather, johns) and by subsequent men (brothers, cousins, sons) some even birthed by the victim herself, often continuing until the woman or girl is murdered (“domestic” violence).
I keep pondering these similarities when I’m exploring the meanings of the things that women experience under patriarchy, trying to make sense of male behavior, and ultimately trying to determine Ultimate Solutions for women as a class. I find all of these things to make an eerie type of sense when the Ladybird/Wasp dynamic is juxaposed over them. Through this lens I find myself seeing men as the wasps. And seeing women as the Ladybirds. So when I wonder to myself, what should women do? What’s our solution to being victimized by these parasitic wasps? I ask, What would/should the Ladybird do? And just like in my previous post, when I posited the questions “Should women be educating boys?”, the parallel question to that is “Should Ladybirds try to educate wasps?”.
But in pondering the should-ness of ANY type of engagement between a host and a parasite in consideration of the host’s well-being, the answer will be “no” assuming a natural, open world context. Because in a natural, open world context the host can escape and avoid to a successful degree. Seeing as how any host has nothing to gain from engaging parasites, nothing to gain and, often, everything to lose, the most clear and immediate solution is escape and avoid. Contrast with that, the parasite who has everything to gain from the host, and losses/risks are either minimal, low likelihood, worth it, or non-existent. The parasite will always benefit from engaging a host. Therefore creating enmeshments between itself and its host, entanglements of itself with its host, will only increase the parasitic success rate. Any tactic that closes proximity to the host, keeps the host present, keeps the host engaged, keeps the host trapped will increase the potential for parasitic gains, and increase the potential for harm to the host. The ladybird as nothing to gain and everything to lose from engagement with or having proximity to the parasite. So the question of “should hosts engage parasites in any way?” is an easy one to answer presuming a natural, open world context. No. We should not engage the parasites in anyway. Therefore, women should not engage men in anyway…right?
Well, in the case of humans, especially when banal questions of individual choice come up, it gets more complicated because the natural, open-world context hardly applies, and is diminishingly applicable as male “civilization” continues to spread to even the most remote parts of the world. This is the reason for my using the term “natural, open-world context”, to imply that in the case of the “developed” homo rapien world, the situation we are facing is not natural, but artificial. Most girls/women on the planet (except possibly a very lucky few) have been born into a network of material and immaterial infrastructures, institutions, and other systems that have been built by our parasites. A parasitocratic enclosure, if you will, that is specifically designed to keep us hosts trapped, entangled, enmeshed, confused, over-whelmed, distracted, disabled, to keep us engaged with the parasites, unable to get away or see a way out. It is also design to prevent us from fighting back in many many ways. “Modern civilization” is a system specifically designed to guarantee that parasites (men, even the lowliest of them) have access to women (the hosts) for resource extraction and parasitic propagation.
Welcome to your “home”land, ladies.
While, Dinocampus Wasps are not sophisticated enough to build an enclosed system that keeps generation after generation of Ladybirds trapped in bondage, they do use their cocoon to tether the Ladybird down while the parasite offspring continues to develop off of its host’s body. This makes me picture patriarchy as a complex, all-encompassing system of cocoons that the parasites have spun all around us. Their cocoon is nearly all that we know. This cocoon is designed to prevent us from getting away. Men have taken the free and open world, and turned it into and inescapable hell.
The patri-parasitocratic cocoon keeps us positioned in close proximity to the parasites, and we are blockaded from accessing the resources we need to live autonomously. Men have strategically stolen, destroyed, and blocked our natural and free access to resources, and men have hoarded these resources, placing themselves (aka their dicks) between us and our subsistence, thereby creating in the hosts an artificial dependency. This artificial dependency is a male/parasitic-reversal come true, for it is actually the parasite who is naturally dependent on the host (cue MRA’s whinging about female “parasitism”). Hosts have zero natural dependency on parasites, because as I said, nothing to gain nothing to gain nothing to gain. And women have absolutely no natural need for men. But men, the sophisticated crafty parasites that they are, have us trapped in their cocoon, cut off from free access to natural resources, starving us until we give in to their demands that we engage with them, tend to them, serve them, entertain them, fuck them, suck them, feed them, coddle them, make more of them, birth them, raise them, lay on the alter of them, love them, love them, love them…..or hate them, hate them, hate them it doesn’t matter. So long as we stay engaged with them they stand to benefit off of exploiting us, and we are rationed just enough resources to not quite die all the way….but then sometimes they do kill us for their own Ultimate Pleasure.
But parasites would never be so foolish as to exterminate the hosts completely, so a parasite’s ultimate solution is to engulf the host, to incorporate, enslave, and incapacitate. Incapacitate…..this basically means separate host bodies from host brains. Host body is needed, but host brain (autonomy) is problem for parasite. (see more on Brain Damage)
This cocoon includes immaterial trappings as well. Mind-bindings like words, narratives, stories designed to keep hosts confused and fused to the parasites. Ideas like “community”, “family”, “equality”, “romance”, “yin yang”, and “harmony of the sexes”/ “complimentarity”, “two wings of a bird”, “couples” are all psycho-social fabrications that create artificial relational bonds between parasites and hosts. “Civilization”, “Human-kind”, “people” and “children” are words that conflate parasites and hosts and assign a false co-responsibility to women for the destruction of the earth and ultimate end of the world and life as we know it (aka men’s existential semen stain on the universe).
Immaterial resources are blocked, destroyed, and hijacked by men as well, resources which would benefit their hosts, such as social and spiritual communities with other women, and emotional bonds between women. The parasitic system breaks its hosts’ minds and hearts at very young ages by mangling relational bonds between women and girls, and none is more key to doing this than the Mother-Daughter bond (more on this in a future post, but here’s an apt quote from witch wind).
“Our first source of security as humans (females) comes from women, that is, as a child, from our mother. We relate to women and to the world in part according to how our relationship to our mother was structured: our basic psychological development and survival in the first several years of our life is essential and entirely dependent on our close bond and care from the mother or female surrogate.
Men break this security by oppressing both mothers and daughters, taking control over women and girls. They create a state of abandonment and forced betrayal by the mother which they then take advantage of to organise trauma-bonding to men.”
Breaking Mother-daughter bonds conditions hosts into a life-long pattern of isolation from each other, and being hateful, fearful and distrusting of one another. Hosts are then left to instead bond with parasite surrogates (fathers, brothers, boyfriends, husbands, sons, male peers, priests, Jesus/God, etc) which, again, creates in hosts an artificial socio-emotional dependency. Hosts learn to associate parasitic contact with trace amounts of social interaction, “bonding”, “love” and “affection” which is just enough to temporarily prevent hosts from completely succumbing to various forms of psycho-emotional sickness (anxiety, depression, loneliness, boredom, suicide etc.), just enough to keep us from killing ourselves, but still suffering a slow, life-long spiritual death. Men also block, destroy creativity and humor in women, and claim all creative/comedic domains as their monopoly, forcing women to drown in insufferable boredom and again making us dependent on men to access trace amounts of “fun”, “entertainment”, “self-expression”, and laughter.
Additionally, as Cannabis Refugee points out in her struggle with supporting herself in this money-driven, isolating, women-hating, woman-violating parasite’s “paradise”……. for individual women to forgo a single enmeshment with a single parasite does not necessarily equal her liberation. For many women, that can to result in free-floating in the cesspool of parasites and parasitic excrement that compose the “society” we are trapped in. From frying pan to fire. But I digress, I am not here to tediously dissect individual “choices”.
So when we return to the question “Should women engage with men?” given the forced artificial context, the answer is not a simple “no”. Artificial does not mean not real. Artificial simply means Not natural, which to say that an artificial dependency is still a dependency. Which is to say, that the artificial context that men have created is, itself, a tactic that vetos our “no”-via-escape. There are some who find the answer to the question to still be a simple “no”. And perhaps they are not wrong in some ways. But perhaps I am not asking the right question to begin with. Is there another way to “say no”?
I can only think of 2 other ways to for women as a class to “say no” to men’s parasitism. Die, which would be for us to kill ourselves, and refuse to continue to be a resource for them to exploit and build their heinous empires with. Or……..what do you think? What is the final option? The Ultimate Solution? Women’s entire existential conundrum is that of the battered woman.
How do women overcome these artificial dependencies? What do wild creatures do when backed into a corner?
I am convinced that Women’s Liberation is incompatible with the following conditions:
1. Women being dependent on men’s “resources” (money).
2. Women refusing to engage in violence against men.
3. And possibly….Men existing.