Gender Characteristics
In A Statement of Gender I explained the universal principle of gender and how it functions. As a continuation of how gender influences our actions I have included herewith the characteristics of gender.
The “I” represents the masculine principle of gender. It contains the will that motivates the “ME”, which represents the feminine principle of gender and contains the thoughts, feelings, and emotions of the self that require the direction of the “I” in order to produce and accomplish. Each person contains the “I” and “ME” components, but the “I” predominates in the male and the “ME” predominates in the female.
The “I” requires certain characteristics in order to enable it to fulfill its mission and the “ME” requires certain characteristics in order to enable it to fulfill its mission. The following listing of gender characteristics, are arranged alphabetically for convenience and do not in any way indicate which characteristics have the most importance.
Characteristics of the masculine gender are: abstract thinking, activeness, ambition, conditional love, constancy, contemplation, courage, creativity, daring, dependability, discipline, force, independence, individuality, knowledge, leadership, originality, pioneering spirit, positivity, progressiveness, spirituality, stability, and will-power.
Characteristics of the feminine gender are: accommodation, adaptability, caring, companionship, consideration, cooperation, diplomacy, friendliness, gentility, giving, harmony, industriousness, informative, materialism, nurturing, receptivity, responsiveness, rhythm, visual thinking, and unconditional love.
Everything produced comes from the feminine gender; however, what it produces must be in accord with the parameters of the masculine gender and these parameters are constant and encountered in all production whether in the construction of a space station or in the boiling of an egg. The building of a space station requires the taking into account of gravity, the rotation of the solar system, the movement of the solar system, and a host of other calculable factors. If even one of these factors changes the space station will fall out of orbit. In the boiling of an egg the water must boil at 212° every day; if the temperature at which water boils varies it will create chaos in the kitchen. Every occupation relies upon the constancy of the masculine principle. Fishermen preparing to go out at high tide expect high tide at a certain time, cowhands starting the day at sunrise expect that it will occur when it is supposed to, and the dancer expects the pull of gravity to be constant or he will constantly fall. Everything constructed or produced comes from the feminine gender but it must be in accord with the unseen but constant parameters of the masculine gender. The book of Malachi states, “I am the Lord unchanging”, which exemplifies the masculine principle.
Some people believe that these characteristics are available equally in men and women, but if that were possible, what would be the attraction between them? What motivation would there be to mate?
The gender characteristics that people possess provide the attraction of the opposite sex. Kenyan author David Maillu indicated that an African proverb states, “What a man does not possess is found in a woman and what a woman does not possess is found in a man.” Men and women possess the gender attributes that enable them to procreate the race; their characteristics supplement one another.
If we ignore gender characteristics, we will not mate, as is evidenced in the reduction of fertility rates that accompanies the adoption of the Western way of life throughout the world.
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 19th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
SK said: “infidel..why are you so tormented by E.G.’s metaphysical…”
1. If EG wants to promote his religion, he should at least admit that’s what he’s doing, and not dodge the question the way he did.
2. Because it’s irrational (i.e. goofy).
3. He should not misrepresent other religions to promote his own.
July 19th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
MMX, you are not being honest. You don’t have your own message any more than I do. Why go on and on about it?
July 19th, 2007 at 11:11 am
infidel — MMX, my answer, as I’ve said before, is to look to Western Civilization before feminism. There is a LOT there on gender, if you look for it. What’s stopping you from using your manly initiative and doing your own research?
Right, “Western Civilization before feminism” is a summary, or a title. Kind of like, “The best way to bridge two rivers.” or “The best way to design a 130 story building in an earthquake zone such that it’ll never fall down.” or “the ideal number of units we should import to make an ideal profit.”
It exists, sure. But, unless you can explain it, in your own words, the summary alone isn’t even close to adequate.
You persisted and asked for some specifics so I offered a poem and a book title.
Right. A poem you didn’t write, but copied from someone else. (And did you add your own words to explain yourself. Of course not.) A book you didn’t write, but rathermentioned from someone else. (And did you add your own words to explain yourself. Of course not.)
I can’t remember how many times you’ve accused me of “not being my own man” – yet nothing you’ve added to this discussion consists of your own words. You treat me as if I’m the enemy, and that, by ignoring my requests for your own words that you’re being extremely clever.
No, not at all.
No one man or book has the sum total of knowledge on gender. Do not count some men too much.
I only discount those who don’t have the fortitude to come up with their own message. Not one of Elder’s many critics have taken his lead and said something like: “Male Charcteristics: (create list here)”. They’ve only instead taken up the dopey notion that destroying a message they dislike is just as awesome as creating a message that others can like.
Elder’s message is superior to no message at all. The “hollow victory” that follows is the fault of the opposition’s unwillingness to create their own, a responsibility which is 100% their own.
July 19th, 2007 at 10:42 am
infidel..why are you so tormented by E.G.’s metaphysical..universally accepted.(accept by the gender bender community) theory of the masculine/feminine inter-relationship???
Are you a “gender bender”???
July 19th, 2007 at 10:04 am
infidel…I would have to agree with MMX…wheres youre theory???
Are you in fact incapeable one???
Because of youre impotence in formulateing a message of youre own, you ceaselessly attack someone elses!!
E.G’s message is definatelly bucking the current “group think” of the “administrative class” shall we say… But maybee it needs a little bucking..
You seem to hint at questioning ones loyalties to the east or to the west..
1000 years ago..The holy roman empire split into two distinct camps when the czars decided to move the seat of the roman empire closer to the east..I believe they moved the seat of the new roman empire to constantinople. And what was left.. germany/france/italy now compose what we consider the western nations..
I know this bit of “trivia” because I hold the eastern orthodox church in high regard.
They are still christians!!, but some would say they practice a more un-adulturated version..hence the term “orthodox”
July 19th, 2007 at 9:50 am
MMX, you are a disciple of EG and your purpose here is to convert others to his beliefs.
Articles on gender can serve a purpose by stimulating a discussion of gender related issues. But I don’t think MND was set up for the purpose of proselytizing; luring people to EG’s metaphysics/religion.
July 19th, 2007 at 9:25 am
MMX said, “So, why don’t you take up the questions that infidel failed to answer? If you don’t like Elder’s message, why don’t you propose a better one to replace it. ButBecause, like infidel, you seem to have absolutely no message on gender whatsoever.”
MMX, my answer, as I’ve said before, is to look to Western Civilization before feminism. There is a LOT there on gender, if you look for it. What’s stopping you from using your manly initiative and doing your own research?
You persisted and asked for some specifics so I offered a poem and a book. Still you are not happy, so I will give some more specific book titles later.
If you persist in saying that I’ve dodged the question I might have to retract what I said about your sincerity.
MMX said: “Everything you write is, ‘I don’t like so-and-so, because he does such-and-such.’ …
MMX, that is not true. Not everything Amfortas has written is critical. He took the time to write up a lengthy and entertaining illustration of the cave people and the tigers. There were some good points about male and female behavior in it. I don’t think it was pure entertainment. Perhaps that’s all you saw in it.
Western Civilization has vast experience. EG does not. Does EG alone have more to offer than Western Civilization? No one man or book has the sum total of knowledge on gender. Do not count some men too much.
July 19th, 2007 at 5:28 am
One good book is “Man of Steel and Velvet, a Guide To Masculine Development” by Aubrey Andelin.
Sounds like a new age males guide to s+m…but I will buy it ang get back to you!!
July 19th, 2007 at 1:39 am
amfortas — EG has explained how HE THINKS masculinity and femininity work. He asserts his thoughts, which are illuminating, but gives no proofs.
So, why don’t you take up the questions that infidel failed to answer? If you don’t like Elder’s message, why don’t you propose a better one to replace it. ButBecause, like infidel, you seem to have absolutely no message on gender whatsoever. You have, instead, complaints against Elder’s message.
Everything you write is, “I don’t like so-and-so, because he does such-and-such.” – which is great. But I’ve failed to see anything attributable to you which says, “Given my vast experience deconstructing other messages, it’s not time to promote my own message, which reads ____ _____ ____”
WHere is it, amfortas?
July 19th, 2007 at 1:33 am
MMX says, #29; “Elder has created a message which explains how masculinity and feminity (sic) work.”
EG has explained how HE THINKS masculinity and femininity work. He asserts his thoughts, which are illuminating, but gives no proofs. His taxonomy is elegant but not necessarily correct. He is like the feminazis who ‘explain’ masculinity and femininity in equally unsupported and hubristic terms, only they say women are empathetic, communicators, nurturers, multi-taskers etc etc et blooming cetera. They illuminate hubristic femonazism; He illuminates EG. He adds little to explanation of human beings, male or female.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:12 am
MMX, I admire your passion, dedication, and sincerity, but I have to call it a day.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:09 am
MMX said: “Haven’t you made this out to be “infidel versus EGism”?
I see it as Western Civilization, before feminism, versus EGism. I thought I made that clear. You see it as Infidel vs EGism.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:06 am
MMX said: “Running unopposed, Elder’s message wins.”
A hollow victory.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:05 am
A drowning man will grasp at anything that appears to float. Perhaps that explains why some are grasping at EG’s irrational message, like grasping at straws. Maybe they are hurting and they take the first supposed life preserver that is thrown at them.
Why not pass out the book I suggested above and see how your friends like it?
July 19th, 2007 at 12:40 am
infidel — “Being EG’s attack dog is not original or creative.”
Of course not, but that’s all you SEE of me. Given that I spend, perhaps 7 hours a week on here, you’re judging me based on less than 10% of what I do with Elder’s message. (Would a true skeptic, academically trained or otherwise, judge a man based on less than 10% of what he does, or would he demand to know more, and see more?)
If you’re truly interested in investigating what I’ve done with Elder’s message, I live on Long Island. You’re welcome to chat with the new friends I’ve made as a result of Elder’s message. A Skeptic needs to see all the facts up close, right? (Because a Skeptic would NEVER make an accusation based on so little evidence, right?)
“If you are so original and creative, where is *your* book? Where are *your* articles? Where are *your* definitions?”
My gift isn’t for blogging, although I would write, if asked. I make long-term friends with Elder’s message, and use it to help them put their lives back on track. This is a very time-consuming process. Not only do I have to listen to their problems, but I also have to deliver the message, in the right way, at the right time. (You can see how this requires so much more work, and incurs so much more risk, than making anonymous comments in another person’s blog.) And, because I’m not perfect, I do screw up, which means I have to mend the damage I’ve unintentionally created, before I can move things forward.
Real people, real problems, real solutions. (Again, once you’ve adopted this lifestyle, you see blogging as far less significant.)
Do I write? Yes, but not published. I’ve had people tell me, “The instant you write a book. I’d buy it!” – which is flattering. But the more time spent writing, the less time there is to interact with people. (Not only that, but writing something down kills the spirit of immediacy. Can you write down a very successful pick-up line? Sure. But will it work on all women? No. And wouldn’t it be better to have a living sense of which line would work on which woman? Of course! Can that be written down? Not really. It has to be learned through experience, much like Elder’s message.)
So, as you can see, writing my ideas down doesn’t really appeal to me. Though I will occasionally post them on another message board to see how they’re discussed.
Is that what it means to be a man?
Nope. Being a man means bringing something unique and individual to the world: YOUR LIFE. But not just any life, a very productive and strong one which nourishes the earth, your friends, your country, your God, and yourself. What’s a man? Non-narcissistic productivity. That’s the key.
Can you become productive by challenging other peoples’ production? Never!
“You passion for defending EGism has blinded you. Instead of seeking the truth objectively, you are so attached to EGism that you are making poor arguments in defense of it.
I see you’ve graduated from Harvard’s Advanced School of False Accusations.
You’d be much better served coming up with your onw message, not a summary of a message, but a true message. Otherwise, you’ll just drag everyone else down to the ZERO POINT.
“MMX, I already said that Western Civilization, before feminism, is better than EGism. That is my message. ”
“Western Civilization, before feminism” is a summary – not a message. A message is much longer than its summary.
“You don’t have a message of your own either. You have EG’s message.”
Even if that were true, haven’t you made this out to be “infidel versus EGism”? That’s great, but, as of now, Elder is running unopposed. I can’t even consider voting for you, because you don’t have a message of your own.
Running unopposed, Elder’s message wins.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:37 am
SK, I don’t need or want feminism. I think I’ve made that clear. I don’t know why you think I do.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:28 am
infidel…you act like one of these current demographic of myn that desperatelly need feminism more than the women need feminism!!
My coffee shop experience has shown me that more young women are open to questioning feminist doctrine , than the males are!!
We may be dealing with the reality that most women may see the poisinous attributes to the current feminist juggernaut, and turn away…only to have some males desperatetlly clinging to it.
As marc Rudov says…some men now need feminism more than the women they think they are defending!!
July 19th, 2007 at 12:19 am
MMX said, “Get my point?”
No I don’t. Are you telling me I’ve registered zero posts? I’ve been discussing it to the point that people are telling me to go away.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:15 am
MMX said: “If a man wants to be respected and known … ”
MMX, I don’t care to be respected or known. I am not looking for disciples. I want you to be your own man. I don’t want you to count me too much, or EG too much.
I am not promoting myself. But I’m trying to steer you in a healthier direction. There are alternatives to EGism that are both masculine and rational.
One good book is “Man of Steel and Velvet, a Guide To Masculine Development” by Aubrey Andelin. But it’s not the gospel. Neither is EGism.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:05 am
MMX, I already said that Western Civilization, before feminism, is better than EGism. That is my message.
You don’t have a message of your own either. You have EG’s message.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:02 am
MMX said: “When a man accepts the traits of: originality, creativity, and risk-taking as his own and as very important to his manhood … he just simply writes”.
Being EG’s attack dog is not original or creative.
If you are so original and creative, where is *your* book? Where are *your* articles? Where are *your* definitions?
Is every man supposed to be a writer? Is that what it means to be a man? Don’t women write? And some of them are very good at it.
You passion for defending EGism has blinded you. Instead of seeking the truth objectively, you are so attached to EGism that you are making poor arguments in defense of it. EG has some good points, but also some weak points. Don’t count some men too much.
EGism often eschews definitions, but you demand them from others.
July 18th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
infidel — MMX, unlike some others, I am not devoting my life to discussing EGism.
Are you kidding me? I don’t devote my life to discussing the fate of the St. Louis Cardinals. (I’m a Yankees fan.) Consequently, if you search every St. Louis Cardinals message board, you’ll find that I’ve registered zero posts in any of them!
Get my point?
As I pointed out before, EG, your guru/hero, has backed down from discussing this with me and wtexas, and so please apply your comments to him and stop promoting a double standard.
Elder has created a message which explains how masculinity and feminity work. Infidel has not. So why is it a double standard to say, “Hmm, here’s Elder’s message which has quite a few excellent points. But, on the other hand, there’s infidel’s non-message, which has zero good points.”
Call me stupid, but something is always more valuable than nothing.
One of the strongest masculine traits I know of is self-starting, or initiative. If a man wants to be respected and known, he simply must be pretty darn good at something valuable. Similarly, if someone wants to be well-known and respected for understanding gender, then that someone must develop and display their own definitions of masculine and feminine. Once displayed, they must be openly criticized.
Infidel, by refusing to do this, what are you forcing us to conclude is your message about gender? Is it illogical and mean to conclude that you don’t have one worth discussing, simply because your efuse to offer it, but are instead complaining about “double standards” and “insults”?
infidel — “Funny that they don’t tell MMX he has made his point ad nauseam.”
Because I don’t have just one point, which I play over and over again, but man.
I asked you to promote your own ideas by asking these two questions.
(1)If you dont’ like the idea of “proving one’s masculinity” – because you think it displays insecurity, then what’s the alternative?
(2) Once you’ve defined your alternative, can you adequately compare the two sides, and prove which one is better?
I did NOT do this because I’m trying to set a trap for you, in order to make you look bad. But rather because, as it stands now, you’ve given us NOTHING with which to surrender Elder’s message to. Elder has a message; you have complaints against his message. But what’s your message?
July 18th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
MMX said: “It’s simply not enough to copy someone else’s poem … “.
MMX, it’s simply not enough to promote someone else’s book.
MMX, be your own man. Don’t be EG’s disciple.
When you write your own book instead of promoting EG’s book, I’ll write my own poem.
Maybe Skeptic has a job and doesn’t have time to write.
July 18th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Skeptic said: “MMX, I’m not a writer. But no definition is better than a bad definition.”
Good point. The Hippocratic Oath is summed up in the principle: “First do no harm”.
July 18th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
MMX, unlike some others, I am not devoting my life to discussing EGism.
As I pointed out before, EG, your guru/hero, has backed down from discussing this with me and wtexas, and so please apply your comments to him and stop promoting a double standard. I.e. EG can dodge his critics but his disciple MMX relentless pursues others and challenges them to respond to every silly thing MMX comes up with in defense of EGism.
And then others (other EGists?) tell me I’ve already made my point ad nauseam
Funny that they don’t tell MMX he has made his point ad nauseam.
July 18th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Skeptic — “MMX, I’m not a writer.”
One of the essays in Elder’s book spoke about “Credentials”, an offshoot of “Materialism”.
Do you believe you’re not a Writer, simply because you’ve never made enough money doing so? That’s the Materialist trap, the notion that a thing is only good if it acquires lots of money from people.
Or do you believe you’re not a Writer, because you haven’t learned to write at a super college like Harvard? That’s the “Credentials” trap, the notion that only experts in Writing an decide whether someone “is a Writer” or not.
In his essay on Credentials, someone told a man who had invented something that his invention wouldn’t be taken seriously, because he wasn’t an Engineer. The Inventor laughed and said, “Inventions don’t come from Engineers, but from God.
When a man accepts the traits of: originality, creativity, and risk-taking as his own and as very important to his manhood, he never says, “I can’t answer the question, because I’m not a Writer.” Instead, he just simply writes.
July 18th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
infidel — What does it mean to be afollower? Use your definition to prove that we follow Elder, but not ourselves.
Did you see my last post to you on this thread?
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/07/16/a-statement-of-gender/
I would hate to think of you as someone who severely backs down from all challenges. (And don’t use the “fighting fire with fire” line, because it won’t work.)
July 18th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
infidel — The next step for you would be to compare Kipling’s poem “If” with Elder’s message. See where both messages agree, and where (if anywhere), those two messages disagree. It’s simply not enough to copy someone else’s poem without explaining: (1) how it compares to Elder’s message, and (2) why you like it better.
Skeptic — Your approach is way off.
For one thing, anyone can come up with “nothing” as a comparison. It takes no effort, grace, talent, nor insight, so why use it? Secondly, who is ever content with NOTHING, anyway?
For another thing, if a person can’t come up with something better, why be there?
Worker – “Hi, I’m interviewing for the auto mechanic position.”
Boss – “Great, can you place this place run better?”
Worker – “No…not really.”
Boss – “Why even show up then?”
One of the better things about Elder’s message is that it forces you to reflect on your own contribution tot he world, to people, to yourself, and to everything.
July 18th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
EG’s followers would do well to note one line of Kipling’s poem in particular:
“If all men count with you, but none too much:”
Does EG count too much with his followers?
Listen to others (if they are rational), but be your own man.
July 18th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
MMX, I’m not a writer. But no definition is better than a bad definition.
July 18th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
And now for a description of manhood from a Western poet.
The poem is called “If”. Please note that it is refreshingly free of metaphysical nonsense, proving that one does not need EGism to find inspirational examples for today’s generation of young men who have been left without adequate father figures.
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too:
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or, being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise;
If you can dream — and not make dreams your master;
If you can think — and not make thoughts your aim,
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same:
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ‘em up with worn-out tools;
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings,
And never breathe a word about your loss:
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: “Hold on!”
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings — nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much:
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And — which is more — you’ll be a Man, my son!
– Rudyard Kipling
July 18th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
Skeptic — Why don’t you respond to the Challenge I issued earlier to those who (obviously!) don’t like Elder’s message?
(1) If you don’t like Elder’s definitions of masculinity and femininity, define them yourself, for the benefit of us all.
(2) If you can’t do #1, then you’re trying to say that “No definition” is better than “Any definition”. How have such doubters been treated throughout all of human history?
July 18th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
How does Elder come up with this junk? Is he on drugs?
July 18th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Only black guys have rhythm, shirley?
July 18th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
wtexas..”Maybe your loyal followers never graduated high school but many of us took Physics 101 in college”..
Or are better educated and unencumbered by middle class social fears!!
July 18th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Examples of some constants:
The half-life decay rate of uranium 238.
The speed of light in a vacuum.
The cosmological constant (see Einstein).
The gravitational constant :the attractive force between two bodies is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
July 18th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Every occupation relies upon the constancy of the masculine principle.
EG I’m just amazed at the examples you give because they aren’t ones of constantcy but rather of constant varied change (boiling point, tides, orbits)
Are you even aware that these examples change throughout the day/week/month/year?
What is Constant about them? You speak of the constancy of the masc. principle but in most of the examples you cite (the space station for instance) to be accurate you need to factor in constantly changing parameters and variables.
Maybe your loyal followers never graduated high school but many of us took Physics 101 in college. Speak to us!
July 18th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
http://whatscookingamerica.net/boilpoint.htm
Weather: The boiling point of water is a degree or two lower on stormy, as opposed to fair, weather days. Consequently, boiled food will take longer to cook on a stormy day.
July 18th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
EG I just wish you would have accurate technical caveats or clarifications attached to your statements. EX: Water always boils at 212 F (at sea level).
The devil is in the details.
That would also speak to one of your masculine gender characteristics – knowledge-
July 18th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Mr. Elder George has book that has much to teach our generation.
http://mensaction.net/
Gender and Its Responsibility
July 18th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
In the boiling of an egg the water must boil at 212° every day; if the temperature at which water boils varies it will create chaos in the kitchen.
http://whatscookingamerica.net/boilpoint.htm
Altitude: The higher the altitude, the lower the atmospheric pressure. The less atmospheric pressure that bears down on the surface of the liquid, the easier it is for water molecules to escape into the air. Thus, the water comes to its full rapid boil at a lower temperature in the mile-high city of Denver than it can in coastal Miami. For each thousand feet above sea level, the boiling point of water drops almost 2° F.
July 18th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Thank you Mr. Elder for writing another excellent article. We are all fortunate to have you with us, and volunteering your time and experience to the masses.
July 18th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Skeptic — “Look at EG’s largely arbitrary list of feminine characteristics. Most of them just come down to basic civility. Though civility might come easier to women than men, civility is neither masculine or feminine.
You missed the point.
In modern American society (a) most teachers are women, (b) female relationship advice is considered superior to male advice, (c) many homes have absent fathers. This create a feminine imbalance.
So, let’s take the list of feminine attributes: accommodation, adaptability, caring, companionship, consideration, cooperation, diplomacy, friendliness, gentility, giving, harmony, industriousness, informative, materialism, nurturing, receptivity, responsiveness, rhythm, visual thinking, and unconditional love
I highlighted those two because they seem to be the biggest anchor points. Political correctness, affirmative action, and so on, are stemmed from the notion that: the most important thing to do is to never offend.
Now take the male list: abstract thinking, activeness, ambition, conditional love, constancy, contemplation, courage, creativity, daring, dependability, discipline, force, independence, individuality, knowledge, leadership, originality, pioneering spirit, positivity, progressiveness, spirituality, stability, and will-power.
Because people care so much about never offending other people, they sacrifice their ability to behave creatively, daringly, originally, and with pioneering spirit. (In fact, the very act of saying, “Masculinity is this…” produces a defensive reaction, such as, “You can’t say that! That’s extremeist gender thinking!”
When you want, more than anything, to be nice and popular, you sacrifice the very means by which men can most easily become nice and popular.
July 18th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Skeptic – Elder’s message teaches the same lesson that art does: Looking at art reveals the nature, not of art, but of YOU.
If an angry feminist sees a picture of a man kissing a woman, she might say, “That picture is an evil agent of the patriarchy, because it depicts how women should surrender their empowerment to foolishly pursue the love of a man!” Meanwhile, a well-adjusted woman might see the same picture and say, “Wow. That’s nice. That’s the kind of love I want to have in my life.”
The picture is the same for both individuals, but the points are radically different.
(The scary part comes later when they meet the same guy, on the same day, in the same place, within an hour of each other. First, the man tells the angry feminist that he likes her hair. She accuses him of being a potential rapist and abuser. So he ignores her.
Then, the man tells the second woman he likes her hair. She smiles. They talk. Two years later, they’re happily married.)
The points you carry inside of you, influence your responses to the world’s stimuli, which ultimately guides your life. Happy points = happy people. Bitter points = bitter people.
I don’t see any extremism in Elder’s message, because (a) I don’t fear extremes, and (b) I’ve taken the time to read his books and converse with him face-to-face. “One could argue” that the Distant, Cold Approach is a better way to understand a person’s message, but I doubt that’s true at all.
July 18th, 2007 at 11:59 am
Look at EG’s largely arbitrary list of feminine characteristics. Most of them just come down to basic civility. Though civility might come easier to women than men, civility is neither masculine or feminine.
July 18th, 2007 at 11:54 am
EG’s list of gender characteristics represent an extreme view of “masculine” and “feminine”.
If we men don’t exhibit what he calls “feminine” characteristics like “accommodation, adaptability, caring, … consideration, cooperation, diplomacy, friendliness,” we will all be total jerks.
So by this description of masculinity, masculinity is inherently rude and abrasive because it lacks these qualities.
This is an arbitrary and negative view of masculinity, and I don’t buy it.
If we take this view, all men must “get in touch with our feminine side” so we can be fit to live with. Yuck.
July 18th, 2007 at 11:39 am
A short illustration.
There’s a group of lizards living in the American Southwest (whose name I’ve unfortunately forgotten). They reproduce by parthenogenesis – asexual reproduction.
All of the lizards are females. And all of the females are clones of each other. They can only inhabit a very specific environment, because, without the presence of male lizards, they cannot (a) reproduce sexually to create variety and originality, nor (b) adapt to even the slightest environmental changes.
July 18th, 2007 at 9:32 am
the difference between the eastern/western world is simmilar to the differences between Eastern orthodox christianity / and western christianity .
July 18th, 2007 at 8:47 am
Good point about gender-bending ruining the birth rate too. If I’m a career-driven provider, why the hell do I want to marry another career-driven provider with a vagina?
July 18th, 2007 at 8:45 am
Under the masculine characteristics I would add consequence, loyalty, sacrifice.