The Key to the Decision Lies with the Victim
The discussion began with the fundamental idea that the key to the decision lies with the victim, not with the perpetrator, as many people believe. According to this perspective, the perpetrator does not possess the ability to make decisions independently but instead represents a reaction to the victim's condition. In other words, everything the perpetrator does is merely an extension of a decision that the victim has already made.
Accordingly, any action carried out by the perpetrator toward the victim is not considered an independent decision but rather a continuation of the victim's own decision. The perpetrator does not create the action but instead operates within the space that the victim has allowed.
Why Is the Victim Considered the Holder of the Key?
If the key is in the victim's hands, then whoever possesses that key is necessarily the victim. Claiming that the perpetrator is the holder of the key is an incorrect assumption. If the perpetrator possessed absolute authority, no one would remain outside the circle of that control, and no person would be able to escape their oppression.
The very existence of the victim is evidence that the matter is not in the perpetrator's hands but in the hands of the one who holds the power to summon or stop their influence. The victim determines, to varying degrees, the extent of the harm that can be inflicted upon them, whereas the perpetrator does not independently determine the magnitude of that harm because they are not the original decision-maker.
Whoever Seeks the Decision Seeks to Become the Victim
This perspective raises the question of who should hold decision-making authority within the family or society, and whether that authority should belong to the man or the woman.
According to this view, the true decision-maker is the victim, because seeking the right to decide inherently means accepting the position of the victim. The only decision a person can truly make is whether to accept or reject this role. The perpetrator does not decide until the victim's condition has first been established.
The Illusion of Control
Many people believe that the perpetrator is the true controller. However, according to this perspective, such a conclusion represents an unjustified logical leap. The perpetrator is not the one in control but merely performs a role imposed by the nature of the relationship with the victim.
To understand this idea, one must free themselves from preconceived assumptions and move beyond conventional viewpoints, because people often refuse to acknowledge the possibility that they themselves may be the victim.
Man as a Historical Victim
The discussion then shifts to man, suggesting that throughout history, man has been a victim despite performing actions that appeared, on the surface, to be acts of domination. An action does not negate one's status as a victim; rather, it may simply be the result of the role assigned to him from the very beginning.
According to this perspective, man was created in a state of servitude while simultaneously being given the key to decision-making. As a result, he became responsible for the extent of his own losses, whether great or small, yet he was placed in a position that required him to bear those losses.
The Victim as the Center of Events
According to this perspective, the victim is anyone who believes they are the center of events and that all actions revolve around and collide with them. Throughout long periods of history, man viewed himself as the center of the universe, and in doing so became a victim of that very belief.
This raises another question: Who made man feel that he was the center of the universe?
The answer offered is that the condition of women in the past—with the weakness, poverty, and dependence on men that often accompanied it—led men to feel that they were the center of life and existence, and that everything revolved around them.
How Man's Sense of Centrality Was Formed
Women welcomed men as the source of life and provision, treating them as superior and regarding them as the foundation of the home and the pillar of existence. Directly or indirectly, they conveyed the idea that life could not function without them.
This pattern of treatment reinforced a sense of centrality within men until they came to believe they were the center of the universe and that this position was part of their very nature. According to this perspective, however, that feeling was merely the result of how they were treated rather than an inherent truth.
Man Between Centrality and the Role of the Victim
At first glance, this perspective may seem strange. How can man be considered a victim when he possessed authority and exercised it for centuries? Yet this view argues that performing an action does not necessarily imply possessing freedom. Instead, it may simply be part of a role imposed upon its bearer.
From this viewpoint, man continued believing that he was the center of life and the ultimate decision-maker, while that very belief led him into the role of the victim. The more convinced a person becomes that they are the center of the universe, the more burdened they become by the responsibilities that such centrality imposes.
How Did Women Reinforce This Belief?
According to this perspective, women in the past, due to their social and economic circumstances, regarded men as the primary pillar of life. They welcomed them eagerly, granted them a special status, and described them as the foundation of the home, the center of the family, and the one without whom life could not continue.
Over time, this treatment became deeply rooted in men's consciousness until they genuinely believed they were superior and that their existence formed the basis upon which life itself rested. According to this perspective, this feeling was not rooted in any objective reality but in the image that had continually been presented to them.
Centrality as a Burden
This perspective emphasizes that a person who is constantly made to feel like the center of everything becomes more vulnerable to psychological burdens. Anyone who believes they are primarily responsible for everything happening around them lives in a continuous state of tension because they feel obligated to protect everyone, make decisions on behalf of everyone, and bear the consequences of everything.
Thus, centrality becomes more of a burden than a privilege, as it places a person under constant pressure and causes them to feel personally responsible for every failure or disruption that occurs around them.
Competition and Selection
The discussion then moves to the idea of competition among men, suggesting that many forms of historical competition were connected to the pursuit of acceptance and selection. Men competed with one another and engaged in various struggles, while women, according to this perspective, appeared as the party that determined the direction of this selection process.
From this standpoint, conflict was not merely a struggle for power or wealth but was also linked to the desire for acceptance and the need to prove one's worth, placing men in a continuous cycle of competition.
Decision-Making Between Man and Woman
This perspective proposes that constantly encouraging men to make decisions was not necessarily in their best interest because decision-making inevitably brings increasing responsibilities. The greater one's authority to decide, the greater the burdens become, distancing men from the simplicity and tranquility of life.
For this reason, this view argues that pushing men to believe they were primarily responsible for everything caused them to live in a constant state of tension while continually striving to maintain the image that had been created of them as the central authority and primary decision-maker.
The Exchange of Roles Between the Victim and the Perpetrator
This section concludes with a central idea: the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator is not as fixed as it appears on the surface. The perpetrator may play the role of the victim at one level, while the victim may play the role of the perpetrator at another, making the relationship far more complex than the traditional classification that divides people into absolute victims and perpetrators.
Accordingly, this perspective calls for reconsidering the nature of authority and responsibility rather than relying solely on outward appearances when judging the roles individuals play within society, the family, or human relationships in general.
The Sense of Responsibility and Its Effect on Man's Stability
The discussion then moves to another idea: the feeling of being the center and the primary decision-maker leads a man toward an unstable life. According to this perspective, the principal reason for man's historical instability is his constant sense of responsibility, particularly toward women.
According to this view, a man's sense of responsibility is not limited to the women closest to him, such as his sister or wife. It often extends to every woman he sees or interacts with. This feeling is not a recent development but the result of deep-rooted psychological programming that has led him to believe his worth depends on his ability to protect and care for women.
As a result, this continuous sense of responsibility causes him to fear failure, worry about falling short of expectations, and live in a constant state of anxiety and tension.
Man and the Search for Stability
According to this perspective, man naturally seeks stability and tends to prefer a clear and consistent order in his life. Consequently, anything that threatens this stability directly affects his psychological state and increases his sense of disturbance.
When faced with unexpected events or rapid changes, he feels as though the ground beneath him is no longer solid. He therefore strives to restore things to their familiar pattern because stability provides him with a sense of security and reassurance.
From this standpoint, a man hopes for a stable life in which everything follows a clear order, allowing him to return home at the end of the day feeling that life is once again under control.
The Difference Between Men and Women in Their View of Change
In contrast, this perspective argues that women approach change differently. While men view stability as a fundamental value, women see change as an opportunity for imagination and for reshaping reality.
Unfamiliar events and sudden transformations open new possibilities for women to think, renegotiate, and make new decisions, whereas men often perceive these same changes as sources of instability.
Accordingly, the difference between the two does not lie in their desire to live but in the way each perceives stability and change.
Change and Its Relationship to Decision-Making
This perspective continues by stating that whenever a person constantly changes their decisions, they also change their way of life. Men, however, tend to preserve their decisions because doing so provides them with a sense of continuity and stability.
If a man repeatedly enters experiences that alter his habits, he gradually begins to reassess his ideas and decisions, slowly moving away from the traditional image through which he has long understood himself.
Thus, changing a decision, according to this perspective, becomes part of the process of changing the individual rather than merely moving from one choice to another.
Imagination and Reality
This perspective distinguishes between the ways men and women view imagination. According to this view, imagination is not a major priority for men because they tend to regard reality as the primary reference point in their lives.
For women, however, imagination represents a broad space in which they can move freely, reconsider possibilities, and explore alternative choices. This makes them more willing to embrace change and reshape reality.
The Concept of Prison and Masculinity
The discussion then turns to the symbolic concept of prison. According to this perspective, masculinity has historically been associated with commitment, discipline, and restrictions to the point where men have become psychologically nourished by order, duty, and responsibility.
Accordingly, completely breaking free from this system would, from this viewpoint, mean departing from the traditional image upon which masculinity has been built. Throughout history, manhood has therefore been associated more with endurance, discipline, work, and commitment than with complete liberation.
Man as a Servant of the Role Assigned to Him
This section concludes with the idea that, from the beginning of his existence, man was placed in a position of service and responsibility, and that this role eventually became part of his psychological and social identity.
Consequently, many of his actions, according to this perspective, do not arise from absolute freedom but rather from responding to a role he has repeatedly performed throughout history until it became an inseparable part of his identity and his understanding of himself and the world around him.
Man Between Servitude and the Search for Meaning
This perspective continues to reinforce the idea that man was created in a position of servitude and was assigned, from the very beginning, the role of service and responsibility. It argues that this role was not merely a temporary social circumstance but became part of the psychological structure that developed throughout history.
From this standpoint, man often acts not out of complete freedom but in response to a deeply rooted belief that he is responsible for others and that his worth is measured by the service or sacrifice he provides.
The True Perpetrator and the Role of the Victim
The discussion then redefines the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim, asserting that the true perpetrator may not always appear as the one in control or the obvious aggressor. Instead, the perpetrator may hide behind the image of the victim.
Not everyone who appears oppressed is truly a victim, and not everyone who appears powerful is necessarily the real perpetrator. Therefore, this perspective calls for moving beyond superficial judgments and examining the deeper roles each party plays, since appearances can be misleading.
According to this view, the true perpetrator is the one who succeeds in convincing others that they are the victim while continuing to influence events from behind the scenes.
Women's Influence on Men
This perspective argues that women historically had a profound influence on men, although that influence was not openly expressed. Men believed they were the ones leading and making decisions, while many of their decisions were actually shaped by psychological and social factors connected to women.
Accordingly, what appeared on the surface as male authority did not always reflect the true balance of influence, because much of the guidance occurred indirectly and without explicit acknowledgment.
Man as the Executor of the Role
According to this perspective, the greatest service men provide within the historical system is their willingness to undertake difficult roles and perform tasks that others cannot, even when doing so comes at the expense of their own comfort and stability.
As a result, the image of man became closely associated with strength, protection, and endurance, and society came to expect him to fulfill these roles continuously until they became part of his social identity.
Standards of Choice and Selection
The discussion then turns to the concept of selection, arguing that people are evaluated not only by their visible actions but also by their ability to bear responsibility.
From this perspective, a man who avoids or rejects responsibility may be viewed as less worthy, while greater appreciation is given to those who shoulder burdens and confront hardships, even when doing so demands significant personal sacrifice.
Control as an Illusion
This perspective emphasizes that the desire for control is not necessarily evidence of genuine strength. Instead, it may reflect an inner feeling of inadequacy or a need for self-validation.
The more attached a person becomes to the idea of control, the more they become trapped in the role imposed by that desire, eventually becoming its prisoner without realizing it.
Thus, the feeling of being in control may sometimes be nothing more than an illusion concealing a deep dependence on the recognition and acceptance of others.
Inner Pain as a Means of Influence
The discussion then addresses another form of influence: internal psychological influence. According to this perspective, violence is not limited to physical harm or direct confrontation. In many cases, it becomes even more powerful when it targets emotions and the inner sense of self.
When a man feels inadequate, guilty, or believes he has failed to meet expectations, he begins to reshape his own behavior voluntarily, without the need for direct coercion.
For this reason, this perspective argues that deep psychological influence can be more effective than visible force because it leads people to discipline themselves and continue performing the roles they have become accustomed to.
The Power of Choice and Its Psychological Impact
According to this perspective, possessing the ability to choose gives a person significant influence. When a woman demonstrates that she has multiple options, the purpose is not merely to announce the existence of those options, but to create a sense of competition that motivates others to invest greater effort in gaining acceptance.
An example is given of an employee who informs their employer that other companies are interested in hiring them. They are not simply stating that other offers exist, but are also using that information as a negotiating tool to improve their position.
In the same way, this perspective argues that suggesting the existence of multiple alternatives creates an ongoing process of renegotiation and encourages the other party to continue improving themselves in order to maintain their position.
Competition as a Driving Force for Development
This perspective maintains that competition among men has not merely been a desire for superiority, but has also served as a force that motivates them toward greater achievement, work, and progress.
Each individual strives to improve their position in comparison with others, creating a society that is constantly evolving and contributing to continuous growth and development.
The Visible Decision and the Hidden Influence
This perspective emphasizes that many decisions which appear to be made by men are, beneath the surface, shaped by indirect influences exerted by women.
What appears on the surface is not always the complete picture, because psychological and social influences may precede the visible decision and quietly guide it without the individual recognizing their true source.
For this reason, this perspective calls for distinguishing between the one who visibly makes the decision and the one who contributes to shaping that decision behind the scenes.
Masculinity and the Symbolic Prison
The discussion returns once again to the concept of prison, this time as a symbol of commitment and psychological conditioning. According to this perspective, masculinity has become associated over time with a set of rules and traditions that shape patterns of thinking and behavior.
As a result, men tend to become accustomed to stable systems and find comfort in repetition and consistency, until this conditioning becomes an integral part of their psychological makeup.
The Attraction to the Victim Archetype
This section concludes by suggesting that, according to this perspective, men are often attracted to women who appear vulnerable or in need of protection because this image aligns with the psychological conditioning that associates masculinity with responsibility and care.
Accordingly, this attraction is explained not only by emotion but also by psychological and social patterns that have become deeply rooted over time, influencing how men and women choose and interact with one another.
Man and Psychological Conditioning
This perspective continues by arguing that men naturally tend to become accustomed to fixed systems and established patterns, making them more susceptible to psychological and social conditioning. The longer they remain attached to a particular way of life or thinking, the more difficult it becomes to break away from it.
According to this view, this preference for stability extends beyond everyday habits to human relationships and to the way men understand themselves and their role within society.
Love and Responsibility
This perspective argues that a man's attachment to a woman cannot be separated from his deep sense of responsibility toward her. In this context, love is presented not merely as an emotion but as a state in which affection is intertwined with protection, care, and commitment.
For this reason, a man may feel a stronger attraction toward a woman who appears to need support, because that feeling corresponds with the image he has developed of his role in life.
A Person's Value Lies in Their Existence
The discussion reiterates that a person's value should not be tied to the functions they perform or the responsibilities they carry. Human beings deserve life simply because they are human, not because they have accomplished a particular task or fulfilled a specific role.
Accordingly, making personal worth dependent solely on achievement may reduce a person to a tool serving social or cultural systems, whereas their existence itself precedes every role they may perform.
The Illusion of an Imposed Mission
This perspective rejects the idea that every person is born with a predetermined mission upon which their value entirely depends. An individual does not have to live under the constant pressure of searching for a grand purpose to justify their existence. Instead, they can freely choose their actions and pursue what they believe is appropriate without feeling that life loses its meaning if they fail to fulfill a model designed by others. There is no single experience that serves as the official teacher or a universal model whose application is mandatory for every human being.
From this standpoint, the persistent insistence that a person's worth depends solely on accomplishing a predetermined mission may itself become a means of directing them to serve goals that are not truly their own.
The Balance of Human Relationships
This perspective argues that relationships between men and women cannot be understood by viewing one side as entirely oppressive and the other as entirely oppressed, because every relationship contains a complex network of mutual influences.
What appears to be injustice toward one party may be accompanied by another form of influence exercised by the other. Therefore, understanding the relationship requires examining the complete picture rather than relying only on outward appearances.
Balance in Nature
This perspective further maintains that life is founded upon a form of balance, where every action has its consequence and every force is met with a corresponding force. Human relationships therefore do not move in a single direction but instead exist within a continuous process of influence and response, giving and receiving, dominance and submission.
Consequently, reducing reality to a single party that bears all responsibility or possesses all power does not, according to this perspective, reflect the true complexity of life.
Conclusion
This perspective concludes that understanding the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator, as well as between men and women, cannot be achieved through conventional judgments or widely accepted assumptions. Instead, it requires reexamining the nature of authority, responsibility, and the mutual influence individuals exert upon one another.
A person may appear to occupy a position of strength while in reality being imprisoned by the role they perform, or they may appear weak while possessing profound influence over those around them. For this reason, this perspective encourages moving beyond superficial judgments and exploring the psychological and social structures that shape human roles rather than relying solely on the events and appearances visible on the surface.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
No comments:
Post a Comment