Genderist
Manifesto
December, 2004
[It's all just a social construction]
And here we wander in illusions:
Some blessed power deliver us from hence!
[A Comedy
of Errors, IV, III, 43]
From whatever aspect we consider the command,
we can now see that, as we know it today, in the compact and perfected form it
has acquired in the course of its long history, it is the most dangerous single
element in the social life of mankind. We must have the courage to stand
against it and break its tyranny. The full weight of its pressure must be
removed; it must not be allowed to go more than skin-deep. The stings than man
suffers must become burrs which can be removed with a touch. [Elias Canetti. Crowds and power. 1960.]
By the pricking of my thumbs,
Something wicked this way comes.
Open, locks,
Whoever knocks!
[MacBeth, IV, I]
Erin O’Connor
informs us that Michigan State U. is working towards required courses on
“Gender and Sexuality.”
The
Michigan
Daily News has this to say…
A group of students are pushing
for a course requirement for gender and sexuality issues, similar to the race
and ethnicity requirement. The requirement would mandate LSA students take
three credits of classes addressing these issues. Students would still need 120
credits to graduate, but the new requirement would not replace the race and
ethnicity one. It could also count for a student’s distribution requirement.
The group, called the Gender and
Sexuality Requirement Committee, is presenting its proposal to LSA social
science department chairs today. Earlier this week, the committee recommended the
proposal to women’s studies faculty members. The students hope to address the
LSA curriculum committee early next semester, which is the first step to
getting the approval of all LSA faculty.
“A Gender and Sexuality
requirement will create new dialogues, challenge hegemonic
discourse, break taboos and stigmas,
and open up realms of communication between all students,” states the students’
proposal, slowly being circulated among LSA faculty members. The plan would
incorporate a wide swathe of issues, from classes on “Hollywood Masculinity” to
those on gender and health.
When
the proposal for these mandated courses is passed (by the pusillanimous
panty-headed faculty)--and who doubts it will?--genderists
at other universities--smelling victory--will push their own versions of forced
group-sex think. One foresees an infectious rash--a veritable impetigo--of
new courses.
1.
Overcoming your fear of flannel.
2.
The codpiece narratives.
3.
Famous persons who thought they were gay but (it turns out on closer
inspection) weren’t.
4.
Famous persons who came out of the closet and then went back in.
5.
Cherubim with flaming swords. Gay images in the Bible?
6. Barbra Streisand. David Brenner in
drag?
Yes,
Professor Plum is making sport of this sort of thing. And he will make MORE
sport--perhaps reaching nonstop revelry--in a moment.
But
first he wants to draw a line between the stunning arrogance and childish genderology of self-absorbed campus social reformers (who
pay far too much attention to their groins) and SERIOUS realities such as
violence against women, to which the harpies of gender-speak respond with limp
pc workshops on "Healthy Relationships." Oh, that'll do a
[In
marked, and possibly psychotic contrast, Professor Plum walks his women
students through the process for purchasing
handguns and getting a concealed carry permit, and suggests that they obtain a
used .357 magnum revolver
(and a box of jacketed hollow
point cartridges) from Bill's Guns right down the road. (Or, they can
call 911 after they are assaulted.) Professor Plum (and every other
redneck he knows) takes violence against women seriously, as do the Second Amendment Sisters.]
We’ve
had 30 years of university courses, majors, programs, offices, initiatives, and
mission statements on race and race relations. Have these produced inter-racial
understanding, cooperation, and harmony? We think not. Instead, these
ill-conceived activities have helped sustain and worsen anger and mistrust in
both directions. Nice going!
Likewise,
college courses and programs that turn “issues” of sexuality and gender into
grievances, alleged inequities, and victim pageantry, where smug reptiles in Rogerian habit try to make their captive student audiences
feel guilty for all sorts of crimes against gender--will yield the same
resentment.
Worse
still, the pc sex/gender dogma is part of the same crude marxian
postmodernist critical theory delusional system as whole language, fuzziest
math, and multi-culti humanities; and efforts by
these groups to make their position the only position is
nothing new in the history of not-so-friendly fascism disguised as social
reform.
Professor
Plum hopes there are enough students left with backbone, hind legs, and
intelligence to see this as nothing more than thought control in the service of
the clot-pated world views and attention-getting
antics of campus moral entrepreneurs. Professor Plum would like to see a
resistance movement where subordinate majorities (students) debunk and reject
the political-cultural agenda of the dominant minority (university
administrators, perfessers in “progressive”
departments, and the purveyors of forced political correctitude).
Following
are suggestions for thinking about the campus totalitarianism of mandatory
sex-and-gender re-orientation courses.
1.
Know that these are run by idiots--bureauquacks way
past their level of incompetence and expiration date. These beslubbering,
whey-faced
dummies rely entirely on hyperbole, pop sociology, overgeneralization, appeals
to authority, and ad hominem arguments.
“Everyone
knows that…”
“Anyone
who disagrees must feel threatened.”
Their
most proficient job performance is ingratiating themselves with the powers that
be (the Higher Idiots in university administration)--whose main concern is
looking good.
Or,
these programs are run by self-anointed priests
in the GLM--Gender Liberation Movement: persons who, for example, claim to be transgendered, and present themselves as adepts of sexoterica. The Higher Idiots feel they are in the presence
of nobility. They can’t wait to shell out big bucks for positions, offices, promotionals, consultants, and courses.
“We’re
walking on the wild side now, Boy howdy!”
2.
Understand that the campus bureauquacks and genderhacks are vulnerable. As
vulnerable as Phil Donohue during his commencement address at
In
other words, the legitimacy and livelihood of the genderists
rests entirely on their audience’s gullibility or silence in the face of
coerced participation and intellectual trash. As with soviet science under
Stalin, facts are manufactured to suit ideology. Therefore, it’s easy to blow
the speakers’ cover--by asking questions that reveal the obvious nonsense, as
shown below.
3.
It will be said that gender is a social construction. If
so, then how come billions of children world wide and as far back as we have
any info, KNOW they are male or female by the age of three? This despite
vast differences in socialization (alleged gender constructing) processes.
4.
If gender is a social construction, how come boys and girls are typically given
the same sorts of gender-specific toys world wide, from industrial to
hunting-gathering societies. Is this evidence that gender is constructed
BY toys, or that toys are suited to pre-existing gender identity? I think
the latter.
5.
It will be argued that some persons (a tiny minority) do not fit the
one-of-two-genders pattern, and that this proves that gender is an arbitrary
social product. But doesn't this, rather, weaken that tiny minority's
claim that it is normal? A few children out a thousand are born blind.
Does that show that sight is NOT the natural condition?
6.
What does it mean when a woman, for example, says "I feel like a
woman"? Which woman does she feel like? All
women? How can a woman know how all women feel? [Do they all
feel the same?] How can a woman even know how ONE woman feels? And
when you FEEL like a woman, what exactly do you feel, aside from the
obvious? Does it mean anything more than you are comfortable ACTING
female?
7.
If gender is a construction, isn't it more likely (in view of the near
universality of almost irreversible gender identity by the age of three) that
it is NOT gender ("I AM male/female inside.") that is constructed,
but merely the PERFORMANCE of gender? If so, then does it make any sense
to say "I am a woman/man trapped in a man's/woman's body"? Does
that statement mean anything more than "I don't like to ACT like a
man/woman?"
If
that's true, then does the claim of "gender confusion" or
"gender dysphoria" merit any more special
concern than the claim "I don't know what kind of work I'm cut out
for" or I don't like this kind of work"? [I don't think the
CLAIM merits more concern, but I think the PERSONS do. I think the folks
who've been convinced they are gender confused or gender dysphoric
are victims of the self-righteous gender crusaders who have used them to serve
their political and financial interests. The process is identical to
crusading (that is, totally self-interested) public prosecutors and social
workers convincing kids they've been victims of satanic abuse.]
8.
Isn't it likely that "being a person in transition," or "being a
person who is gender confused," or "being a woman/man in a
man's/woman's body" are the true social constructions? Aren't these
merely social roles and identities that are offered by the larger culture of
alternatives--akin to Goth, punk, hip hop, gangsta,
and other fad personae? Aren't these identities sold on the market
place?
"Mel
and Sid's Fashions For Persons Who Don't Know What
They Are"
If
so, then the whole gender-as-construction edifice collapses like a wet sock.
However, just as the progressivist quacks in ed
schools will manufacture new pedagogic movements to replace the ones (e.g.,
whole language) weakened by relentless criticism and insult, so the larger
campus gaggle of self-appointed socio-biological reformers will latch onto another cause
and force feed it to students--but only as long as they are tolerated.