W W W W  World Wide Web Witness Inc.  Home Page   Contents Page for Volume  What is New

CHAPTER SIX

GENDER, AMENDER, RELIGION AND THE LIVING GOD

There has been a vitriolic lambasting substituting for clear thinking, apparent in Australian politics, and long before this, in Australian educational circles and elsewhere, which begs so many questions, engages in so much irrational word-play and promotes so much dusty confusion, that it is time someone at least cleared the air a little, and made it apparent what is happening procedurally, as distinct from what people may actually want, be it good or bad.

There are terms used in this verbal cross-play. One is 'sexism, which my Webster's advises refers to (unfair) discrimination on the grounds of sex, initially against women. The (unfair) addition is not a pleonasm, redundant. There is a reason.  'Discrimination' in English has at least two meanings. One is to discern and see actual differences, as in a very discriminating analysis (entirely different from a discriminatory one). The other is simply 'discriminatory' and confusion can arise even here, so that writers are responsible for making their meaning clear, unless they wish to mislead, a further option.

To see actual differences is in the heartland of both science and wisdom'; for confusion is otherwise all but mandatory. Thus to find actual differences between fingers and thumbs is not discriminating in the negative sense, but a work of discrimination, in the sense of a just differentiation. That is a matter of finding the actualities of the case, hardly to be accused. This point, simple as it is, is quite basic to the current illegitimate word abuse.

Is the statement that men and women differ, discriminating or discriminatory, in the above different senses ? Does it state an observational fact, or is it a work of false judgment, untrue attribution, in short, of prejudice ?

It is the former. That they differ is to be seen objectively, not only in attitudes to sexuality (I prefer here 'gender' which keeps specialist aspects in line with their broader grouping), but in works available in child-bearing. Men cannot, as made, bear children. Women can. Men do not have as a part of themselves, embroiled in their own blood supply, something called an embryo, normally destined to become an infant. Men do not find this embryo becoming mature, issuing from their being own physical being, and in doing so, change the method of taking oxygen, from the ( woman's) blood, to the use of its own lungs. Such things are missing in men. To state that men and women have no difference is a manifest and even grotesque and elemental error. Let us MEAN what we say, and so avoid slides to all kinds of illicit and irrational results.

Further, in the same objective mode, women do have, and men do not have, the power intimately to deal with what issues from their very own being, as a living part of it, AS SUCH: for example,  to breast feed the result of the detachment, equals the infant. They may have any kind of emotional attachment, but the physical one is different, specialised, significant, but very diverse indeed. There is a natural intimacy with women and their babes, just because they have issued from part of themselves. We speak physically, and not psychologically, since it is not necessary here to go into any further differentiation which may be normal in that realm.

Women, in addition to any moral, civil or marital duties concerning a babe, that may be attributed to them, have a unique responsibility in dealing with what was part of themselves. It is natural so to act, in respect of anything initially a part of oneself, including poems, plans or schedules made or declared.

The concept that the attribution of difference to men and women, then, is in any way wrong, is not only irrational, but prejudicial, tendential and a glaring misuse of terminology and emotion.

How large, or in what manner, that difference is to be stated, then becomes a proper question, and if opinions are to differ beyond the undeniable and multiple differences in physicality for the issue, so be it. They often differ on many topics, without such difference becoming part of an abrasive, slanderous hate-campaign, a vitriolic series of statement and denunciations, including calling on a professional person to resign. That would appear rather an epic in hate literature and declamation, than a clarification.

There is a certain complementarity between men and women, in addition to the above, which tends to ensure that people in the two genders co-operate at various levels, including insemination. Each has had a part, for all the woman's significant and differential unity physically with the child, and there is without question in this, natural human birth, a joint enterprise. That one should insist hers or his is better, is not here to the point. That is a matter of multiple considerations.

In provision of the male element and the availability of the female one, then, there is a certain kind of partnership. It is not the same, though it has many similarities. The question of the significance of these similarities and differentiae is not a matter of vitriol and cheap political misuse of emotion, but enquiry with many elements in view. It is better, before knowing all the answers, and becoming the judicial ultimate, as appears now to be near to occurring, in fiction but not in fact, in pretension but not in practice, to know at least some of the questions.

It is better to be acutely aware of the scope of relevant facts, and the distinction between these and the attribution of significance on this or that basis. If religion be defined as that assertion or understanding of the meaning of life, man, the universe and reality which some declare and prefer, whether in approaching discussion, worship or action, then this is a religious issue. To lay down a religion in Commonwealth terms, to institute it or require it,  is forbidden in the Constitution of this nation. Views based on it are to be protected; they are not to be imposed by law. Any law based on demands, on one side or the other, moves into collision with this constitutional concept. Standards of one kind or another may be preferred; these may provide governmental norms, but not exacted of conscience.

If it be said that women should stay in the home and deal with children, men go out to work and deal with support, then ultimately, this is a religious issue. If it be said, instead, that in general there are large advantages in this happening, though it is no rule, and a listing of advantages and disadvantages is given, then this is not so much religion,  except in this one thing: that the GROUND of the evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages will almost certainly relate to one's estimate of what the values are, which one deems fundamental, unavoidable, or the departure from which one may, as in the Parliamentary case, decisively condemn.

If this is acknowledged as a religion, then it is clear. If on the other hand, it is merely asserted as a judicial ground of condemnation, it is so on the basis of mere preference, this becoming prejudice. The GROUNDS are the ultimate, derivable from the religious element, and the estimate of diversities and their significance, rests on these things, with many elements in play.

If it be said that women in this professional regard (taking one slice only of the matter before one), should have no impetus, duty or responsibility whatsoever to any question of children, beyond that of a man, or diverse from it, then this is  religious matter of values. If it be a question of how best to raise them, then that is too a religious consideration. Why the basic and undeniable differences should suddenly cease, even when the women is uniquely giving birth in the natural order, and not the man, and is evacuating a part of herself, unlike the man, is a suitable question for consideration, with relevant values underlying such debate, freely and honestly acknowledged. That part is once again, purely religious. Pros and cons could be discussed, but as soon as the pre-condition of a certain moral ascendency of some one or other element be asserted, the matter is simply religious. That is by no means the same as subjective, as shown in this site on multiple occasions (e.g.  SMR, TMR); but it must be acknowledged as to area. It is a specific area of view and understanding.

Incidental to this appalling vulnerability to the misuse of terms and confusion, is one further element in the Australian case. There is a term of discriminatory action because of sex (either way) and there is another term for the same in terms of hatred of women. If 'sex' is used as a synedoche for 'gender', so be it, as long as we are aware of this strangely insistent use of figurative language. It is important to realise that 'sex' refers to a certain speciality in which men and women differ, at the technical level, and gender is one referring to all differences which may be related to them, including one having the babe as a part of herself, which is not sex, though highly relevant in any ordered discussion.

To use 'hatred of women' to MEAN, 'a differentiation between men and women' is just slander. Even sexism does not require hatred!

The vocabulary issue is merely incidental. The 'hatred of women' term carries enormous emotional baggage, since it is contrary to the co-operation involved in the continuance of the race, and has an odium of generalisation since some women are in spirit immensely different from others. It becomes moreover a blunt instrument when it is used to mean something else, and when someone is accused of that something else, when what is placed in view is objective notation of actual differences between those of different genders, when these are considered in terms of views and understanding about different roles,  different values on different bases. It is appalling to hate women, or men,  as such, simply in terms of the one against the other, since it is literally discriminatory, alleging what is not true in the same sense of all, or overlooking differences. Hatred in one thing; diversity of views as such, it is another. 

Emotion towards these or those people is one thing; hatred is specialised. To imply it or cover it in word use without differentiation of intent, seems fair game for the term slander: inconsiderate abuse of attribution, without relevant ground. If this be so, then is the newspaper^*1 assault which appears to be in view, to deal with them in case they should say something not entirely justifiable, a further case of an hypocrisy so vast, as to pass from the arena of what appals, to what becomes a sort of non-splendid natural event, like a vast solar flare ? But let us return to the Parliament and its exhibition of values.

To accuse someone of being a woman-hater, or to use a word historically and normatively and in root basis meaning just that, of someone who may be keeping in mind various actual differences, and have religious  values back of this, is mere prejudice, irrational, indefensible, an abasement of speech. Even if the meaning is said to be ''sexism", with its concept of unjust differentiation beyond what is there, this merely adds to the emotional abuse, bringing into play the battle of the sexes and such concepts by free association in the word mutation involved. This same word, just cited, is often a matter of rampant disregard of similarities, without ground. If this is not meant and evidenced, then this is misuse of terminology once more. If it is meant, evidence is needed. There is thus provision for a double assault, by word play. Refusal to think does not give one a moral monopoly.

The first misuse of 'misogyny' to mean something else, and thus to bring into battle the detestation of that particular hatred, and its emotional baggage, is merely a confused or confusing device, realised or not, one suitable for getting come-uppance out of words. If someone HATES someone, that is something. If it is based on a strange religion, then that too, it is something. But if someone sees a difference between  two different things, and says so, that is entirely something else; and the fusion of the two by blatant manipulation of verbiage, would appear atrocious ethically. It does not differentiate the reality, but the IMAGE being created,  from the REALITY. If you want to prove hate, then do so, but don't let a word substitute for evidence. If you want to show emotion under pressure, then interpret it with reason, not placards, and demonstrate what may be demonstrated, without waiting on a word play to do it for you.

Let us not accept, however - whether we agree with the religion of the person concerned, the recipient, or as here, one does not  - such verbal procedures without entirely relevant and argued basis, as something that is just,  or even ethical. Where such things are applied, with intemperate seeming superficiality, to the victim of such use of terms, it tends to lower the atmosphere of Parliament, and to confuse concepts of the victim of such speech tirades, by bringing in things which may or may not have application, but have them come anyway, as if they were a trailer attached to the verbal car being driven, apparently rather recklessly.

To revert to any underlying reality, it is important to  realise that 'sexism' is a two-edged sword. People can be guilty of misuse relating to it, in two ways. First,  they may use it to assault the name or ideas of those who refuse to  see ANY difference between people of different genders, with a philosophical hang-up so great, that to make the different identical is almost a necessary work of human engineering. That is a case of gender-amender, a desire based on personal values of an ultimate kind, to make what is different, the same.

The designation 'sexism' is at least plausible there. That is one form of such distension past observable reality, where an extreme gender attitude is displayed. That such a view is one of hope is obvious; it is not dealing with fact, but an ultimate and indeed, a religious value, which it desires to be implemented. To act as if such a view were non-religious, and not baneful to things as they are, is discriminatory. It is all about what is not in physical existence. Secondly, this emotive term may be used to refer to those who go beyond what is clear beyond argument, and insist that a far broader range of things is required in considering people of different genders, that there is nothing in common, each a kind of genus on its own. This is another extreme move in a diverse direction from the other. Its qualification for the term 'sexism' is just as sound.

If however, what is being argued is some position which accepts physical differences and their immediate correlatives, but moves to work within this, towards some value position, then the use of the term is monstrous. It is a mediating position. To call such a thing as that even misogynist would be comic, though its results, as a distortion, might not be so! It would ignore the use of terms as accurate and precise, import emotions foreign to the case, invent emotions not more involved than are March flies in Summer (they may occur, but their occurrence is not synonymous or assured: they are different types of things).

In the end, the basis for the final differentiation between humans of different gender is religious, in depicting and applying a hierarchy of values, and their quality or necessity. Where this is not acknowledged, and the religion is not given a rational confirmation, the position bids fair to become fraudulent not in one, but two ways. Thus an implicit religion is given authority, like the emperor's new clothes, present by protest, not visibly. Again, it is not open for debate, since it is not named.

Thus, once again, to assume either kind of  sexism is true of someone who is basically involved in showing concern about the precise place for differentiation between men and women, and may not agree with the wants of some others,  is not a observational matter. In each case, the matter is simply not purely factually based. It is a religious war, using secret and unnamed weapons.

The person targetted in such a war, may not satisfied that the whole range of differences between humans of different genders has been realised,   or may deem the limits of difference over-stated, or current concepts in vogue be continued; and hence ask for such description to be adjusted, or retained as the case may be. WHERE and IN WHAT the differences lie is the subject of investigation and perhaps of attestation. As noted above, this is a religious matter, basically, though it has some added elements. That is both a matter  of observation, and ultimately, of religion. To pretend that some things are not religious, which are, and then insist on these, to the detriment of other  things which are religious, is exceedingly difficult to differentiate from hypocrisy. 

The simple and sweeping insistence on ALL THE SAME or try to MAKE THEM SO, in one  form of 'sexism', using such an element to seek its near oblivion; just as a similar kind of insistence that they are ENTIRELY DIFFERENT is just as bad, since each fails to be confined to fact, or to acknowledge religion. The evocative and figurative term 'sexism' could meaningfully be applied to either of these. It is when the matter is seen as it does, to depend on facts of observation and religion, that the invective might subdue itself, with a return to reality. Instead, it might become a matter of  religions being discussed AS SUCH, or the varying degrees of differentiation that are factual or basic, within them, and their relationship to what is approved or forwarded in the social matrix.

If, then,  the concept of difference, in one extreme or the other, occurs, then that may meaningfully be deemed ''sexism''  - if you want to use that figure of speech. It may not logically, however, be used to mean careful and honestly provided gender evaluation and assessment. That is the first braking. The second is this. If the concept of difference includes an active emotional hostility, to those of one gender or the other, then we are moving into an entirely different kind of realm. It is an APPROACH OF HEART, to one gender or the other, not evaluation on basic principles of one kind or another, of how they should be treated. To confuse approach of heart with evaluation of differentiae is a folly so marked, as to warrant that sense of appalled disgust which already seems to be apparent, in the categorisation used for 'misogyny' in the sliding Australian Parliament, which one can only hope will eventually outgrow such illegitimate and discriminatory verbal mischiefs. 

Biblically, woman was created as a help suitable for man, had a soul just as he did, was accountable just as he was, took an initiative before he did, was followed in it by the man, and they jointly received the fruit of their doings, in divine judgment, as in Genesis 1-3, Romans 5,  8  and I Corinthians 15:42ff., I Timothy 2. Particular people, movements or bodies still called churches may not like that; but it is what  is given in that place (cf. Assault on Timothy). Some churches or bodies may wish to make themselves a kind of authority to be vitamised with that of the Bible; but this does not alter what it says; or its significance as in the works noted, SMR and TMR.

In this, there is some difference, but basic identity at the level of responsibility.

Once I went to a School, being offered a post there. On my arrival,  illegitimately and prejudicially one of the authorities consulted with another and both with me, indicating that I had the appalling notion that in a church, women had certain differences from men, in their relationship to it. This became a major point of discussion; and  although it was irrelevant to them in their professional capacity, and akin to the establishment of their religion that they should fuss about it, yet I freely discussed the matter from the Bible, with them, for their benefit in response to the assault, allowing them to do whatever they would, and not appealing, indeed not pursuing work there, since such prejudice was clearly so ingrained, that their establishment of religion was taken for granted.

Many are the results of a failure to THINK;  to acknowledge the varied and various place of religion; and to be reasonable. The misuse of words is just one more additive to the ultimate endeavour of some, human or otherwise or both,  to make language serve as a blunt instrument, irrationality as a form of manipulation, in so confusing issues that those who WANT something can pretend to have some moral basis for their wrongful discrimination, religion apart. What is a fascinating issue thus becomes the illicit blasting from what becomes an illegitimate and unacknowledged religious domain, without basis, but with gall.

Grave may be the things idly lost, the more so when once divinely found.

These then are matters of method and in no sense represent an assessment of what is the case substantially, in the current Parliament. To be fair, to be reasonable, to demarcate things in their just categories, and not to abuse words to achieve emotional impact, without the basis for those words being independently and fairly established, these are matters in view. Above these, is the matter of religion, this country statedly in its Constitutional Pre-amble, being dependent on Almighty God. It is thus not a strange concept, though some may hope to make it so. The Christian background in this case, is not obscure. If this country wants to change, then let it say so. If it wants to believe in itself and disregard the basis of the past, many now finding it excessively attractive, so be it. But let it not proceed in part or in whole, in gender or religion or history or any other field,  without realising the logical and religious action being taken; and let it avoid confusion as a plague, useful to manipulate, but deadly if received inertly.

Joshua put it clearly to the nation in his day (Joshua 24); Christ to the world before He left till resuming (Matthew 24, 28), this time as Ruler. Alignment in not a verbal play, but an essential work. Items on the way must be faced, not defaced.

NOTE

*1

The Commonwealth appears to have in somewhat dynamic intent, a government control of information, so that the newspapers will be gutted, or governed by consensus of selected people supposedly representative of culture or some other convenient entity. It becomes a new religion as noted below, in this practical aspect, an abuse of constitutional liberty. It is one,  indeed, such as has long, in much the same way, been perpetrated against children in various measures operative in classrooms, as in TMR Ch. 8, SMR pp. 140ff., The Splendour of the Biblical Coverage of the Meaning and Matrix of Man Ch. 3, and Beauty for Ashes, Ch. 3, in the English partial parallel.

On this topic of information control in terms of newspapers, by prospective new legislation, and even a ruling supervision of web sites:

See Freedom, The Nation, The Internet and the Next Generation, esp. Ch. 1, with *2.

See also Ch. 4 of that volume.

Elevation of cultural thought, through people deemed to represent it, set up by a government, so that this constitutes the criterion in determining what is and is not acceptable in terms of free speech, of this principle or that, people's feelings or preference becoming crucial, permission or suspension moulded to the  will and appeal to the mind of the Competent Committee, is in fact an institution of a religion. It is one governed by implied or imported ultimate values;  and setting these at the throat of freedom, Caesar or appointee rules. Such approaches are unconstitutional, a bureaucratic approach to tyranny, instituting a new Commander of the Australian Empire. It goes far to formalising the current educational warp.