A Statement of Gender
In preparing to E-mail information materials to an overseas reader I realized that I had written one of the pieces on a word processor about eight years ago and therefore did not have a copy stored in my computer. The piece is A STATEMENT OF GENDER, which I have retyped and am presenting below as it is germane to recent discussions and might be of interest to you. You can download it or I can send you a copy by attachment if you contact me at www.mensaction.net.
A STATEMENT OF GENDER
Gender exists throughout the universe and the universe could not exist without the influence of gender.
The masculine gender sets standards, whether moral, ethical, educational or societal. It also provides stability, constancy and discipline. The masculine gender pioneers new concepts and creates new products. These attributes of the masculine gender provide the secure environment that enables the feminine gender to nurture the race.
The production of things, the movement of life, the relationship of people, and the well being of society depends upon the principle of gender. In order for electricity to flow in a battery an anode and a cathode are required, and in all else there must be a positive and negative condition for energy to flow, things to grow, and life to move.
Hermes Trismegistus first enunciated the principle of gender at the beginning of the history of this age and examples of it abound in the Tao, Bible, Koran, and in astrological and numerological sciences.
The understanding of the principle of gender is instinctive, for it enables the nurturing and protection necessary to sustain all life. The nurturing process is a manifestation of the feminine gender and the protective process is a manifestation of the masculine gender.
When the unprecedented flowing forth of the creative WILL of the masculine gender invented and produced a plethora of goods and services the effect of which so changed our lives to a degree that we called it a revolution, human thinking regarding the primary roll of men became confused. It was thought that their primary roll was the production of goods and services; therefore men left the home to work long hours in factories, mines, and the wilderness. The administration of the home, and most tribal functions was left to women, creating an imbalance of gender the effects of which would deleteriously alter society.
As women were trained to perform the productive work that men had created a perception developed that there was no difference in performance between men and women in the workplace and in societal activities. Consequently society experienced the decrease of three of the major manifestation of the masculine gender: the creative WILL, the pioneering spirit, and governance.
The decrease of the creative WILL has resulted in a decrease in inventiveness, especially of a conceptual nature. The decrease in the pioneering spirit has resulted in a decrease in entrepreneurial activity, especially as it relates to NEW. The decrease in masculine governance has resulted in a reduction or elimination of standards of all sorts, and a bastardization of religious doctrine.
Crime, rape, adultery, fraud, unwed motherhood, venereal disease, substance abuse, incarcerations (the highest rate in the world), teenage murder, teenage pregnancies, and disrespect for authority have all increased. Narcissism has become the new pursuit, supplanting dedication to the family, tribe, and race. SELF has become the paramount concern, and government has become the vehicle for pampering the SELF. The infrastructure has deteriorated, academic performance has declined, and people have become apprehensive about what they perceive to be the unraveling of the fabric of society, but which is the decrease in the protection and consequently the nurturing of the race—a condition called chaos.
Chaos is the natural consequence of the diminution of the influence of the masculine gender in society—animal or human. The elimination of this chaos requires a reassertion of the natural role of the masculine gender.
A more balanced manifestation of gender will restore reasonable order to society and create a more wholesome relationship between men and women. It will elevate the family to its natural position of importance and will inculcate a sense of responsibility to the tribe as a primary vehicle of societal relationships.
I'm also the Chief of Men's Action to Rebuild Society, an organization that not only addresses the issues confronting you, but takes action to resolve these issues. | More from Elder George
Stumble It!
July 16th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
To MMX
Material things can be measured. A length of wood is either 5 feet, or it isn’t.
Mathematics is more conceptual than physical. Zero is a concept that I quite grasp.
Negative one is also no problem.
As is the paradoxical conundrum “Everything I Say Is A Lie” for example.
Perhaps if I went somewhere where EGs philosophy was practiced I would see what you are talking about.
July 16th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
MMX: I’ll say the same thing to you that EG says to his critics: It’s futile to attempt to educate you. I’ve given up on you. I have better things to do.
Now you can twist that any way you want to.
July 16th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
wtexas — “I don’t know if there is gender throughout the universe, I’ve never been off this planet, ever. I suspect that EG has never been anywhere else in the universe besides Earth (though I may be wrong). So therefore he can make that statement and we can dispute it. How does he come by this conclusion? Is it from the Bible, did God tell him, or is it his opinion? If you assert that the trees in France have the greenest leaves in the world then someone can go there and see if that is true.“
So you’re revealing, for all of us, that you’re biased in favor of material objects. But why aren’t we allowed to say, “Because he is biased towards material objects, he cannot as easily handle that which deals with non-material objects?” ANd why can’t we say, “DANGER: People who are biased towards material objects may find this difficult to understand.”?
If however you assert there is a give and take throughout the whole universe, its becomes impossible to dispute that. It is an opinion. I think people would be more agreeable to EG’s philosphy if he would drop the metaphysical slang (such as “universe”) and stick to something more clear and present.
It becomes impossible to dispute using simple materialistic objects. But so what?
July 16th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
infidel — “So I and others point out numerous inconsistencies in the assertions of EG and his followers and they even admit that EG can’t prove his points logically or scientifically.
It’s not that you can point out inconsistencies. It’s that you avoid the warnings, crash your car, and then try to sue the roadkeepers.
Elder’s message is always attached with: DANGER: The demand for materialistic proof of these issues can be hazardous!
So whose fault is it when someone first demands materialistic proof, and then gets annoyed when it can’t be provided?
July 16th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
infidel — “OK, let me put it this way. EG rejects both the scientific approach and the philosophical (logical) approach when it comes to questioning EGism.
Explain to me how it is a “rejection of science” to assert that the scientific approach ALONE cannot, in and of itself, cover everything there is to know. That’s not a rejection of science, but a proper limitation of it.
So he admits he can’t give me proof of his “truth”. That says it all. That says what “truth” he is offering is Eastern religion. So all his talk about patriarchy and masculinity and femininity is based on his religion.
No, it’s based on his world travels and experience. Elder is 77 years old, and has served in the Merchant Marine for quite some time. He has travelled to many ports and seen many different types of cultures. Can you say the same about yourself?
Do you remember what I said about Hinduism? That, at root, it’s based on every individual’s personal relationship with the spiritual realm? That’s NOT a religion in the sense of Christianity, Islam, or Buddhism, because Elder has never asked anyone to surrender themselves to a higher power.
Once we recognize that, we recognize why this debate keeps going on and on without being resolved. EGism can’t be proven. It can only be asserted. So he makes assertions without proof. Making assertions without proof is by definition irrational. To be rational, one must use reason.
Wanting what you can’t have is also irrational. Wanting others to provide you with what you can’t help, at great personal expense to them is highly irrational. That’s why this debate goes on, because people want to limit Elder’s message to a very narrow, materialistic, “scientific” approach, then try to use shaming tactics when such demands aren’t met.
You praise rationality and reasonableness. But what about integrity and honesty? And what about the power to walk away from something which doesn’t satisfy you, rather than playing silly games to try and mock / discredit / destroy it?
July 16th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
EXACTLY!!!!! I know that too. Thank you thank you thank you. Rush DOES NOT mean LITERALLY that he sees liberals wanting mass unemployment, mass misery, or any of the sort. What he says is that the poilicies they support, though they would disagree, would yield massive pain. This is called SYMBOLISM. You sat and listened to Rush and obviously NEVER called in to say, het Rush, these liberals don’t really WANT these horrible things. In fact these misguided libs think theor ideas will lead to the exact opposite…a utopia.
But his words tickled your ears and you gave it a pass. So symbolism is fine as long as you feel good about it.
July 16th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
But I completely understand what Rush means by that. He’s been out in the forefront for almost 20 years and is widely known, and what he says has been widely diseminated and widely parsed. Its part of the overall picture he paints. Bottom line = libs want many people to be weak and helpless so Big Government can then tax and spend and have welfare programs take care of their needs vs being held accountable for your actions, sucking it up, getting a job and moving on.
July 16th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Symbolism….I wonder if any of you are Limbaugh listeners. If so, and if you agree with him mostly, does it slide right down when he says for example that liberals WANT pain and suffering, that they want doom and gloom? He says it all the time. It is symbolism! I don’t know if you do, but you cannot take that undiluted and then claim some ideological high ground on everything else just because Limbaugh tickles your ears (or any other symbolism you like because it fits your worldview
July 16th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
I offered example after example regarding the points and pictures argument. On the gender and universe stuff I think EG’s choice of words could be better. I cannot speak for him, I would say an assertive influence and a receptive influence rather then a masculine and feminine “force” and then try to make the analogy to gender and human behavior.
If you’d like to debate the need for opposing forces in the universe, be my guest. You may take apart the subsequent analogy, but indeed, please lets discuss the vectors. Those are provable.
It isn’t just trees guys, it is a forest.
July 16th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
What Wtexas is advocating in post # 38 is a scientific approach. It is not a rigorous science because we are dealing with humans. But it still has a lot to offer. It depends on observation. This is different from assertion.
One can use this to “observe” past cultures as well, by studying their histories.
Also, in post #1 (about the twins), the approach is more scientific, and presents a strong argument for nature as opposed to nurture.
July 16th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Wtexas, re your post # 38: Good answer.
July 16th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
And or God’s sakes be careful what you say around MMX, he is the eyes and ears of EG. When the New Regime is installed, EG is going to make MMX the Grand Executioner, rumor has it.
July 16th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
I believe I am able to grasp concepts and ideas. If you tell me that being rude to people will cause them to avoid me I understand. After you’ve lived a few years you can see how psychology and behavior affect people. You can perceive how differently a 20 year old man acts compared to a 50 year old. This is life experience. We live here and now on Earth. I don’t know if there is gender throughout the universe, I’ve never been off this planet, ever. I suspect that EG has never been anywhere else in the universe besides Earth (though I may be wrong). So therefore he can make that statement and we can dispute it. How does he come by this conclusion? Is it from the Bible, did God tell him, or is it his opinion? If you assert that the trees in France have the greenest leaves in the world then someone can go there and see if that is true. If however you assert there is a give and take throughout the whole universe, its becomes impossible to dispute that. It is an opinion. I think people would be more agreeable to EG’s philosphy if he would drop the metaphysical slang (such as “universe”) and stick to something more clear and present. Stick to the Earth but don’t limit yourself to the USA. There are many cultures here, some work better than others. There are many places where women are free to do what they want, and many places where they are not. If EG is true to his convictions then he must believe that our US society is collapsing. When your survival is at stake you reach people by the immediacy of your arguments and leave the metaphysical points for later.
July 16th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
EGism has come up with a scheme to assert whatever EG wants and then to dismiss his critics. It works like this:
1. Make assertions that you have not proven.
2. Refuse to defend them.
3. Insult the masculinity of anyone who asks for proof.
It’s a goofy approach defended by cheap shots.
July 16th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Con said: “Virtue, you are exactly correct. The fear of upsetting the sistas sets in. It blinds some, some are so entrenched in woman fear they don’t even know they are reacting as they do. Look at folks who kneejerk when Islam is questioned. I submit a similar dynamic at work. Infidel … ”
So I and others point out numerous inconsistencies in the assertions of EG and his followers and they even admit that EG can’t prove his points logically or scientifically (e.g. by observation of human nature) and then you respond by suspecting that I’m afraid of women.
Being afraid of women has nothing to do with it. It’s all the errors and the basic idea of not needing to prove their points.
July 16th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Cons said: “Infidel, what exactly is your downside?”
Cons, did you read to the end of the last thread?
July 16th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Lets restart the toilet seat debates please.
July 16th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Here we go again. I am getting used to EG’s style of mendacity. His opening paragraph/statement is typical half-truth coupling.
“Gender exists throughout the universe” – possibly true; “and the universe could not exist without the influence of gender” – patent nonsense.
This one-note obsession is akin to the great toilet-seat debates of several years back.
MMX says in follow up:”Here’s the bottom line: If someone follows Elder’s message, they’ll be able to do more, see more, and perform better.”
Sit down and contemplate that while you pee.
July 16th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
What exactly is the issue you have? It is one thing to reject certain specific proclamations, it is another entirely to sort of scrape up all the assertions you perceive in one’s beliefs, call it an ism, and then disparage it for being an ism.
EG is not setting out a series of absolutes. Your demand for proof suggests he is. Please share for me therefore the counter set of absolutes, then prove them.
I spent a lot of time dwelling on certain micro aspects of EGism as you call it, and negated the entire theme. Can he “have a point” as men are prone to say, even if you’d like to stand against some aspect?
I wonder if every single thing you hold true, daily, some of which even guide your life, can all of them be proven logically according to the standards you’ve set forth here and used to dismiss these concepts in total.
Virtue, you are exactly correct. The fear of upsetting the sistas sets in. It blinds some, some are so entrenched in woman fear they don’t even know they are reacting as they do. Look at folks who kneejerk when Islam is questioned. I submit a similar dynamic at work.
Infidel, what exactly is your downside?
July 16th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
MMX said: “Right, do you have any proof that Elder rejects science … ”
OK, let me put it this way. EG rejects both the scientific approach and the philosophical (logical) approach when it comes to questioning EGism.
Therefore, EGism is a religion. What else is left?
Since he also rejects revelation from a Greater Power (correct me if I’m wrong) he is rejecting the Western approach to religion.
So he is offering an adaptation of Eastern religion.
EG said in comment 85 to the previous thread: “Truth is not provable infidel, it is understood. I can’t embellish that. You’re looking for proof and I can’t give it to you.”
So he admits he can’t give me proof of his “truth”. That says it all. That says what “truth” he is offering is Eastern religion. So all his talk about patriarchy and masculinity and femininity is based on his religion.
Once we recognize that, we recognize why this debate keeps going on and on without being resolved.
EGism can’t be proven. It can only be asserted. So he makes assertions without proof. Making assertions without proof is by definition irrational. To be rational, one must use reason.
EG has stopped debating but you have not. Maybe you don’t understand his point. If you understood what he understands you would also admit you can’t prove it to the rational mind.
July 16th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
infidel — “EGism does not offer proof based on materialistic evidence because that is “feminine” and gets in the way of his religion.”
The longer you continue this argument, the more you prove my point. Do you even know what my point is?
“So by rejecting materialistic evidence, EGism rejects science. Then he tries to interest us in astrology. But to make it sound credible he calls it science.”
Right, do you have any proof that Elder rejects science, or are blind accusations something you despise in others but praise in yourself?
“EGism copies it’s irrationality from Eastern religion, astrology, and other goofy ideas that preceded Western science and philosophy (logic). Therefore it is an adaptation. EGism does not invent anything. Thus it is feminine in nature.”
And Western Materialism’s irrationality assumes that ONLY that which can be measured exists, and that the invisible principles don’t exist.
Here’s the bottom line: If someone follows Elder’s message, they’ll be able to do more, see more, and perform better. But if that same someone follows Western Materialistic insecurity, then no one will stick their neck out for fear of screwing up, and they’ll devote their lives to smacking down those who stick their necks out. The first is adaptive and inventive, while the second says “Nothing can ever be done.”
July 16th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
EGism takes the easy route of not inventing since it is an adaptation.
EG also takes the easy route of dodging logic so he doesn’t have to refute it.
July 16th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
MMX said: “It’s not that you’re “too skeptical”; it’s that you’re taking the easier route between (a) inventing and (b) focusing on other peoples’ inventions.”
EGism copies it’s irrationality from Eastern religion, astrology, and other goofy ideas that preceded Western science and philosophy (logic). Therefore it is an adaptation. EGism does not invent anything. Thus it is feminine in nature.
July 16th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
EG said: “astrological … sciences.”
EGism does not offer proof based on materialistic evidence because that is “feminine” and gets in the way of his religion. So by rejecting materialistic evidence, EGism rejects science. Then he tries to interest us in astrology. But to make it sound credible he calls it science.
July 16th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
infidel — Didnt you read artfldgr’s comments on the other thread?
Paraphrasing.
“When a culture as a whole works to denounce the inventive creativity of individuals, more and more people begin to assert that it’s better to be the person who uses and exploits the inventions rather than be the inventor / creator.”
It’s clearly better and easier to be “the one who asks the questions” (because you don’t risk anything by asking questions of others) than to be “the one who proposes the answers” (because you expose yourself to critics…nasty little buggers!)
“You and I have been rejected as not worthy of his time. It turns out that we are too skeptical.
Self-serving interpretations aren’t very scientifically reliable. It’s not that you’re “too skeptical”; it’s that you’re taking the easier route between (a) inventing and (b) focusing on other peoples’ inventions.
(And given that The Objectors always dodge the deeper questions I put forth to create better understanding, wouldnt it be very logical to conclude that such people aren’t interested in understanding?)
July 16th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
wtexas said: “EG? Is Virtue correct or am I?”
wtexas, EG is not talking to you anymore. See comment 99 on the thread “Decreased Inventiveness — A Symptom”. You and I have been rejected as not worthy of his time.
It turns out that we are too skeptical.
July 16th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
EG said: “astrological and numerological sciences.”
Astrology is a religion not a science.
July 16th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
EG said: “Hermes Trismegistus first enunciated the principle of gender at the beginning of the history of this age and examples of it abound in the Tao, Bible, Koran, and in astrological and numerological sciences.”
It sounds like EG is into astrology. Didn’t he say the other day that one of the planets was in a retrograde orbit and that retrograde orbit may have caused him to become confused?
EG won’t speak to me anymore because he can’t answer the questions from my Western-educated mind which demands logic. Demands of logic interfere with his religion.
So I turn this over to MMX. MMX, is EG into astrology? Ask him and get back to me.
July 16th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
“Where have I heard that tone and seen that type of argument?”
I don’t know? Where?
July 16th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
#
infidel said,
What? People are still defending EG’s subjective, irrational, anti-scientific feminine Eastern religion?
Get a life people.
July 16, 2007 at 3:58 pm
#
Joi said,
Feminists will also make statements like “Gender A Matter of Nature or Nurture?”
July 16, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Where have I heard that tone and seen that type of argument?
July 16th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Feminists will also make statements like “Gender A Matter of Nature or Nurture?”
July 16th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
What? People are still defending EG’s subjective, irrational, anti-scientific feminine Eastern religion?
Get a life people.
July 16th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
It is either a difficult concept because of ntellectual challenge.
Or it is a difficult concept because of estrogen poisoning.
Or it is a difficult concept because it is antithetical to a value system possessed by the hearer of the news.
Those intellectually challenged might learn if the message is posed differently.
Those suffering from estrogen poisoning will start drinking distilled water and purfying their food intake eliinating soy as the second estrogen source.
Those with an antithetical value system will change when it is too painful to continue.
Until then they will get quite virilent in their attacks and twist all kings of facts and logic.
This is the nature of reality.
July 16th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Dosn’t matter how much you teach certain concepts and aspects of masculinity or femininity.
You put a bunch of boys in a room with nothing but barbie dolls to play with and guess what?….they will have a Doll War.
Put a bunch of girls in a room with nothing but GI-Joe Action figures and guess what….You will have GI-Joe Weddings and Tea Parties.
Men tend to gravitate to the masculine as women tend to gravitate to the feminine.
Are there exceptions? OF COURSE
Most women aren’t interested in embracing masculine attributes
Most men aren’t interested in embracing feminine attributes.
Why is this such a difficult concept?
July 16th, 2007 at 11:11 am
To Virtue: you said,
This is what everyone who is having a cow here fails to see.
EG’s referrals to the masculine and feminie traits are not tied to sex. For instance leadership….an ability built upon masculine traits. Does that mean Women cant lead?
Only if your either a) afraid or b) stupid
Example Margret Thatcher. Female Leader who embodied masculine traits
Nancy Pelosi. Female Leader who LACKS masculine traits.
You claim EG isn’t talking about the sex (men or women), but rather about the yin yang of the cosmos as it were. Fine, I can accept that, BUT, EG does in fact state that men have their roles and women have theirs. Under your thinking then, weak Men and Women can be trained in the masculine principle and can therefore have active leadership roles in society.
What I hear from EG is that the universe is set up so that the masculine principle is for males, and the feminine principle is for females. Therefore, I would hazard a guess that EG would not approve of women in leadership roles, no matter how competant they are.
EG? Is Virtue correct or am I?
July 16th, 2007 at 10:44 am
This is what everyone who is having a cow here fails to see.
EG’s referrals to the masculine and feminie traits are not tied to sex. For instance leadership….an ability built upon masculine traits. Does that mean Women cant lead?
Only if your either a) afraid or b) stupid
Example Margret Thatcher. Female Leader who embodied masculine traits
Nancy Pelosi. Female Leader who LACKS masculine traits
Any questions there?
EG is not suggesting that women get barefoot pregnant and back in the kitchen…..if that were the case I would not support his ideas.
But it seems that there are still men here who are afraid. They are afraid to loose the approval of women so badly that they have a kneejerk reaction to any idea that won’t meet with the approval of women.
For those gentlemen I suggest Marc Rudov’s material.
Out of their fear of losing female approval they bring up exceptions (that mostly prove the points that EG is making) or mire up the discussion with irrelevant details.
Its not about the details its about concepts
I can troubleshoot any problem in the world no matter what kind of system the problem is taking place in……why can I do this?…..am I some super genius ?…..No its because I have been taught the CONCEPT of trouble shooting…..the type of system be it mechanical, electrical, or even social is irrelevant because I know theory of troubleshooting and how to apply it. I don’t need details to find the problem or the solution to the problem…..worst case scenario I can research the details as the need arises.
Does this help anyone?
July 16th, 2007 at 10:00 am
Joi said: “Gender is a natural construct not a socially constructed one.”
I agree with that too.
July 16th, 2007 at 9:41 am
To infidel,
The reason government has stepped in is because men have stepped out or were kicked out, whatever position you choose to take.
Patriarchal societies have very few laws; they have standards to live by.
July 16th, 2007 at 9:36 am
On a more positive note, here is one of EG’s statements that I do agree with:
“A more balanced manifestation of gender will restore reasonable order to society and create a more wholesome relationship between men and women.”
July 16th, 2007 at 9:33 am
EG said: “The decrease in masculine governance has resulted in a reduction or elimination of standards of all sorts…”
It seems to me that we have more government and laws (standards?) in our lives than ever before.
July 16th, 2007 at 9:26 am
Inf – why is it that you are not getting past the issue of plumbing, and cannot see traits?
Joi had a perfect example of their separation of the seen v. the unseen.
So why do you think you cannot understand, what is inhibiting you?
July 16th, 2007 at 9:21 am
EG said: “Gender exists throughout the universe and the universe could not exist without the influence of gender.”
1) If we confine ourselves to the facts, then, as far as we know, gender exists only on planet Earth where there are biological organisms.
2) The universe (stars, galaxies, planets) would still be there even if all life were wiped out.
July 16th, 2007 at 9:18 am
Narcissism – the socially acceptable and politically correct pursuit of happiness.
The liberal Marxist Materialists think that is what freedom in the Bill of Rights is all about.
July 16th, 2007 at 9:14 am
Joi #1 hence the great assault against EG for saying the gentle words he has selected.
It is not the word selection nor the presentation. Nor is it the persentor. It is the message that is so unsettling to the Gender Equalists.
Men cannot be enslaved to provide for a status quo. They die or choose to die. Their function and purpose is clear, except to those who seek to own them.
July 16th, 2007 at 8:20 am
CaptDMO and Elder George are actually BOTH correct
“…government has become the vehicle for pampering the SELF.”
AND
“Government has become the enabler for pampering SELF delusion.”
July 16th, 2007 at 8:19 am
To Joi,
Thanks
July 16th, 2007 at 8:18 am
To CaptDMO,
Sounds good to me. How about self importance?
July 16th, 2007 at 8:07 am
“…government has become the vehicle for pampering the SELF.”
Ummm…NO! I’ll abide with-
Government has become the enabler for pampering SELF delusion.
July 16th, 2007 at 8:03 am
Joi – “Why is proving gender as a social construct so important for the feminists? Because by doing so you prove some sort of conspiracy to oppress all women at an early age. Hence, that is why they are feminine and pursue feminine careers, etc.”
Indeed, but this attitude reflects the arrogant, out-of-control aspect of the feminine gender. When Elder says “Narcissism is rampant,” what can be more Narcissistic than ignoring the historical plight of men and children in order to put forth the “Women as Victims” notion?
July 16th, 2007 at 7:23 am
Good article EG. Feminists have long sought to prove “gender and gender roles,” where a social construct not a natural one. Hence, girls were feminine due to being raised in a feminine way, and boys were masculine due to being raised in a masculine way.
There was a documentary about two twin boys which were born, one of the boys genitals were mutilated by an accident with the circumcision machine. So, he was raised as a girl and now one knew but the parents. To make a long story short although the boy was raised as a girl, he was obviously acting more and more like a boy.
This experiment eventually ended in disaster for the entire family, but the point was clear. The feminists were proven wrong. Gender is a natural construct not a socially constructed one.
Why is proving gender as a social construct so important for the feminists? Because by doing so you prove some sort of conspiracy to oppress all women at an early age. Hence, that is why they are feminine and pursue feminine careers, etc.