Ill-Judged as Sexist; Condemned by Prejudice

By pacificus

Sexism is fundamentally the belief that a gender is, with respect to primary fundamental factors, superior to the other. From that comes further derivatives; that it is discrimination, prejudice and/or stereotyping. It has existed with some profundity throughout recent history at least, and affected a great many. It continues to persist yet increasingly the attitude of relative gender equality is rising. Personally, I despise the forced identification and thus mental segregation of the genders as decreed by cultural conditioning (pink for girls and blue for boys) and use of language - is it he, she, her or him? 'Man' is historically - as I see it - a gender-neutral term to describe a member of the human race, or mankind. Why should certain differences in physiology be acknowledged each time a fellow human is greeted or mention thereof included in a document? All should be referred to as 'he' or 'him', just as was the case in Star Trek, in which female officers were called 'Sir' (not the ludicrously PC re-hashed movies, in which the line'...where no man has gone before' has been nonsensically vandalised to become '...where no one has gone before', which is utterly speciesist as it neglects creatures already on other planets). As a form of oppression, sexism has become deep-rooted in the emotional centres of the common man (sexist term? No. See above). Add to the pot the ego and the result is irrational poor judgement. Furthermore, those that are conscious of the overwhelming state of injustice in this bastardised and aberrant world and seek to bring about positive change, have mostly by now been affected to the point that their neuropeptides (hardwiring of the brain) have been arranged such as to thrive on anger; to thrive on the fight and thrive on the identification of injustice. It is a natural adaptation to a persistent state. However, it can be co-opted by irrationality driven by the ego that seeks to maintain a pre-existent belief system. The ego can very easily, where left unchecked, misjudge the actions and conduct of another with highly erroneous and harmful results. Amongst those in question, it can prove highly detrimental and promoting of internecine (destruction through infighting). A major problem in communication in this modern day, in which irrationality is rife and reason is in decline, is that the intentions of another are frequently misinterpreted by the subjective perception of the reader or observer. And where one is quick to judge this results in a rash action of condemnation and utter self-righteousness. The condemnor becomes judge, jury and executioner yet fails to actively seek-out adequate evidence or question the condemned. The writings of one are almost invariably pre-filtered through individual belief filters and contaminated by mental projections before being (mis)interpreted leading to a conscious conclusion. I have found that few know how to read properly; they see words and make of them as determined by the machinations of their conditioned psyches. The result is frequently inimical and most often highly inaccurate. Yet, despite this psychological phenomenon being well-documented and long recognised, even those claiming to possess knowledge of this science fall prey to this effect. And, sadly, they often lack the capacity to introspect and come to the realisation that they are not this superior and infallible creature their own egos would have them believe. Few lack the strength to be able to impugn their deepest cerebral workings and most will not even entertain the notion that they are inadequate in this regard. The human is, in a Newtonian sense at least, the collection of trillions of atoms; an electro-bio-computer with a body to support it; a creature highly susceptible to his environment; a being vulnerable to manipulation and too arrogant to accept the idea; an easily influenced and highly changeable (in terms of health and mood and thoughts) creature constantly under the influence of unknown subconscious programming (be it from years of genuine personal experiences or implanted by an external entity); and he is an organism highly susceptible to fluctuations in health, particularly so in this toxic, polluted, synthetic and anti-natural contemporary world. The factors responsible for behaviour at any one time are complex and innumerable. Therefore, who has the right - the authority - to judge another based on a single thing he has done - based on an interpretation of a perception of his behaviour? What god-on-earth has such jurisdiction; what supreme creature posses such a power, and what arrogance could have one believe capable of such a feat? True judgement almost invariably requires flawless intelligence and, if just, a strong presence of compassion. Where these things are absent or neglected, emotion and ego take over, and together do not judge well at all. I would rather be in the company of a sexist than one so intolerant quick-to-judge and with a proclivity for instant condemnation.

The instinct, or intuition, can be a potent tool in judgement-making. There are many types of instinct, some plausible and others impossible to prove. One of which is based on sub-conscious calculations and knowledge. Where the feeling is recognised of intuition handing the conscious mind a message when it has something to contribute, over false feelings (of instinct) and general psychic noise, personal capabilities rise exponentially. Where this feeling and instinct have been empirically proven to have a high level of accuracy - where it has been verified - the holder is truly blessed. Common men form a collective that think and operate in practically the same way with minor variations (one likes to wear red and the other green). When said collective use a given phrase in a certain way according to certain motivations it is perceived by many in the same way according to certain motivations. However, every now and again an exception to this rule comes along and uses said phrase in a different way, perhaps a literal way with no underlying connotations. Yet he is judged by the collective not as an individual but as one from the same mould as the majority that use said phrase - by the same standard and set of rules. It is the intention of the user of a phrase that matters and which should be focused on, not the initial subjective perceptions and interpretation of the conditioned masses that are exposed to it. An enlightened, intelligent and compassionate observer would possess the patience, and other qualities, essential to translating said phrase in the way it was meant to be interpreted. But few do and instead simply judge and condemn without thought and without hesitation, and shame on them for they plant the seeds of perpetual disharmony. There are many buzzwords in the 'justice-seekers' community, and often they are used by apparent seekers of justice to bring about injustice - oh, the irony! The closed-mindedness displayed is dumbfounding, and the insularity and cowardice demonstrated by their incongruous conduct highly lamentable. The common man often hides his own inadequacies behind whichever '-ism' he chooses to oppose according to his changeable mood, or deplorable quiescent state - should he not know better than that? He should know better and that he does not bodes ill for the future. If an individual of southern African ethnicity refers to another of the same ethnicity as 'nigger' that is fine and accepted by contemporary mores. However, should one of northern European ethnicity refer to the same man in the same way he would most likely be branded racist, even though it was not intended as abusive, discriminatory or anything else unpleasant. He was only wanting to be pleasant, amusing and sociable, yet his intentions were over-looked in favour of the prejudice of those claiming to be his victims. It is the action and intent of the individual that matters, not what came before and not what the cultural take is on any given matter. That which most do or think or have done or will do is inconsequential; it matters only what the individual in question intended, thought and will do. It also matters what his state of health and mind were at the time, and whether or not he was unduly influenced by any external, or internal (parasites, for example), factor(s). Thus, when the term 'Your time of the month?' is used, what are the factors pertaining to its use? The unfortunate automatism rife in culture, particularly in the subculture of apparent 'justice seekers', is that he who uses that term is sexist. How is this automatic judgement valid - a question neglected by many who instead of asking it move directly to the execution chamber, prisoner-in-tow? It (the instant judgement) is not necessarily valid; it is important to look at the context in which it was used; the factors pertaining to the situation, and the other things previously mentioned. He who judges the actions of an individual based on the prior actions of others without investigation is a fool. Where those factors involve the subject of the 'offensive' phrase in question, and said subject was found to be behaving irrationally, irksomely, discourteously, ignorantly and arrogantly, it strengthens the case of the one that used the phrase, but alone does not justify it. Where the behaviour of the user of said phrase was adversely affected by poor sleep and myriad anxieties and irrationalities, or other abnormal condition, it adds even more to the case - at the very least strengthens mitigation. And, where both instinct and conscious mind alike indicated with high certainty behaviour in the subject well known to be symptomatic of hormonal imbalance, the evidence in favour becomes stronger and stronger. Where the behaviour of a female is such that reason and logic have been abandoned, there are several unique possibilities to account for it as well as other universal factors. Yet instinct, especially where proven, is powerful, and where it suggests hormonal imbalance that is where the conscious mind must follow. But where one is unduly influenced by aforementioned factors of poor sleep, anxiety, frustration, and so on, the rational outcome of instinct can be tainted by the abusive lust of the ego. information provided by instinct can therefore be dressed in such a way as to be presented derogatorily and without tact, hence 'Your time of the month?' as opposed to, 'I believe you are presently adversely affected by a hormonal imbalance, which is negatively influencing your behaviour and thus your failure to communicate with me adequately and rationally'. Does it aid a situation to inform an irrational individual that he is conducting himself so? In my experience, it does not but optimism seems eternal. The derogatory term (only perceived as derogatory due to prior frequent use, mostly by myriad male chauvinists in a stereotypical and prejudiced sense to attack and denigrate the subject) won the day. The derogatory term, selected by ego, was used to express an analysis of the irrational conduct of the subject. Condemned by the intolerant and ignorant yet based on accurate analysis of the subject, who later confirmed a menopausal condition which produces adverse effects, thus

vindicating the basis behind said phrase in question. Ergo, it was clearly not based in sexism but in both the frustration of one at odds to communicate effectively with the irrational subject and the reality of the situation. Often I have experienced others declaring certain behaviours expressed by males as being due to testosterone. It is fact that testosterone can and does adversely affect, or be a significant contributory factor in, male behaviour creating violent and aggressive conduct. Is it sexist to suggest the attribution of such behaviour to testosterone? Certainly not, and I have never taken issue over it being done. It would be irrational to claim sexism each and every time a natural effect of a natural hormone present naturally in a male occurred. Equally so, it is irrational and unreasonable to do likewise where females and their unique endocrinology are concerned, even when expressed unfavourably - that is not sexism, it's uncontrolled anger and abuse, if anything at all untoward. the individual in question is an ambassador for himself; he represents himself not the ways of the many; not the culture of misogyny or of current cultural trends. Judgement should be rational and considered, not done on a whim and certainly not done based on influences of the herd.

Addendum 1:

The world is an anti-natural, synthetic fractured and deranged mess. As Krishnamurti said, "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." I have quite a good comprehension of the impact of using such a phrase (as discussed in the essay above), hence my explanation above. Trillions of atoms interacting within a toxic environment cannot be perfect all the time! However, there is another important issue the essay above neglects involving a particularly profound aspect of the irrational human psyche: human arrogance and denial is such that few can accept the implications of the endocrine system. Humans are not capable of 100 % free will - consciously achieved behavioural outcomes and thoughts. We are slaves to our hormones and other bodily chemicals. I could take a substance that would make me feel like jumping off a bridge, or I could take a substance that would make me feel ecstatic and anything but suicidal. Chemicals control how we think and feel much more than most can appreciate or would ever be able to accept. The common man is all but incapable of comprehending the notion that his every thought and action is determined by chemistry. His ego won't allow it. To accept such a thing would push him off his pedestal and out of his excessively comfortable psychological armchair. He would have to consciously realise that anything could happen and he could have spontaneous and unexplained changes occur in mind and/or do anything or feel anything at any time due to variables out of his control. And not being in control is far too frightening a thing for him to grasp. Sadly in this world of myriad synthetic chemical pollutants and toxic overload, the ability to remain rational and logical has declined significantly - due to external interference and contamination. The result is that many are too weak to overpower their inner chemical/hormonal urges regardless as to how irrational and harmful. Common men have been dumbed-down and are too stupid to even think to question the origins of their proclivities and thoughts. Certainly, few can receive criticism or instruction from others without responding with violence, threats of violence and utter dismissal - to accept the external advice would mean to accept their own failings and inadequacies (things the deranged ego can never accept). Concerning the idea of statements made in isolation: We are all products of our environment. The environment - formed of multifarious elements and the actions and inputs of all - determines our view of reality and affects our behavioural outputs. Change a man's environment and the man will change with it. The Animal Rights (AR) movement is but a sub-section of the Justice Movement. All separate/singular struggles for justice, that I have observed, have involved participants responsible for great injustices themselves, even though most do not even realise and are often unreceptive to the notion - psychology/ego at play again. Humanity is profoundly and inherently irrational, and reasoned judgement is often overruled and drowned-out by irrational urges. One fundamental reason behind the origins of misogyny is likely based in such irrationality. The innate differences determined by hormones - between male and female create an incompatibility which perhaps only becomes problematic in this synthetic world away from Nature. When vitamins are fragmented from a whole food (in a laboratory by a vitamin supplement company) they become dangerous, and the same is true with humans fragmented from the entirety of a natural environment. There are effects which are harmful yet their causes remain a mystery. As human ego abhors mystery and

unknowing it arrogantly creates erroneous solutions or dismisses the existence of the problem altogether. This gender incompatibility creates resentment which, irrationally, manifests as sexism. As males are dominant (due to testosterone - is that sexist against the male gender?) misogyny became the primary outcome (although I have observed plenty of sexism from females too. It is not an issue exclusive to one gender). Furthermore, the sexual inclinations of males, which are fundamentally different to those of females, puts the male in a position of some vulnerability, especially so in this synthetic world construct. Often this difference in sexual proclivity is suppressed by the typical male as his cultural conditioning dictates (permanent monogamous relationships, which are clearly unnatural and purely the outcome of interference with the natural order of things. Polyamory is often scorned thus perpetuating an inimical environment in which basic desires are forced to remain unsatisfied). The rejection and poor treatment of males by females, whether the females realise they do it or not (and I'm not saying males don't routinely treat females badly, which is a separate but related issue), creates strong resentment and breeds hatred. This plus the ill-treatment at the hands of aggressive mothers, who foment fear, anxiety, stress and deny a natural and healthy upbringing of their progeny (which is typical contemporary mothering, as I have observed) - a situation that continues for years through the lives of most, particularly so during the critical initial developmental years of new life. Little wonder that the fundamentally irrational human under such circumstances develops a hatred of women. And of course there are many other factors, such as resenting females for begating them in the first place and inflicting upon them this life of suffering and death. It can become very complex but it is important to remove emotion from such an investigation and realise that there is only cause and effect.

Addendum 2:

To add to the above: feelings, caused by chemical imbalance/hormones, are routinely rationalised to have meaning so that the ego feels they originate from within - due to one's own conscious thoughts. Because of this, one lies to oneself with high frequency and overlooks all possibility that a feeling is simply due to a chemical, or hormonal, origin.

Addendum 3:

The condition of humanity is such that insanity is commonplace, considered normal, and irrationality holds sway with utter puissance. One with eyes to identify this deplorable mass state can easily fall into a coping situation in which it is mocked; mocked without consideration for those sensitive to it or their unique perception; reverence is often neglected when dealing with it and fundamental elements concerning it. Urges of sarcasm, irony, facetiousness and flippancy come to the fore, at times with little conscious awareness. As such, it is often difficult to take seriously that which some others always take very seriously; empathy occasionally is overlooked in favour of the use of phrases and actions that most others would exclusively use in the context of injustice. Therefore, those considering themselves warriors against injustice, and who are quick to judge and condemn as discussed earlier, could only perceive and translate the use of said phrases negatively, and react accordingly. That they might be used in ways very different to what the literal and culturally established meanings of said phrases would otherwise hold is not recognised or even considered as a possibility such use of said offensive terms never factors in their one track minds. Issues of sexism, racism, ableism and others, are so often founded in ignorance, stupidity and insanity such that the derogatory, condescending and discriminatory well-established sayings of these respective things are, in the minds of those vehemently and blindedly opposed to them, impossible to construe in any other way. In their closed and non-lateral minds they could never possibly mean anything other than that in which they are programmed to view and hear them. It can never be a joking matter with these people, even if such joking is based in mockery and employed subconsciously as a means by which to cope with the insanity that begat them in the first place. Such people should lighten-up!

V: 1.1

TheErsatzMode@gmail.com