2.3.5 |
SEXUAL BUT NOT EROTIC |
2.3.5.1
THE EXCLUSIVE POEM OF
THE ONLY MALE GOD
(There is a compositional manifestation
of human exclusivism,
of subanthropic exclusivism,
of physical subanthropic exclusivism.
There is a unitary manifestation
of sexual exclusivism.
There is a dimensional manifestation
of gender-based exclusivism,
of unilateral gender-based exclusivism,
of complemental gender-based exclusivism.
There is a componential manifestation
of male exclusivism,
of aggrandizemental male exclusivism,
of aggrandizing male exclusivism.)*
There is an operational manifestation
(of self-aggrandizing male exclusivism,
of intermediary self-aggrandizing male exclusivism,
of ideological self-aggrandizing male exclusivism,)*
of (principal)* self-aggrandizing male exclusivism.
It is supreme self-aggrandizing male exclusivism.
It is the image created by men of a male supreme being:
the man-god,
where there is no authoress,
where there is no goddess.
It is the male incarnation of the supreme being:
the son-god,
where there is no daughter,
where there is no mother.
It is the divine inspiration of a male superior being:
the last prophet,
where there is no prophetess,
where there is no priestess.
'He' is the King, for the King is 'He':
Son and Father, Creature and Author,
Symbol and Man above all,
symbol of self-aggrandizing male exclusivism,
(symbol of male exclusivism,
symbol of gender-based exclusivism,
symbol of sexual exclusivism,
symbol of physical subanthropic exclusivism,
symbol of subanthropic exclusivism,)*
symbol of exclusivism.
It is when men and boys exclude, are excluded or exclusive,
it is when women and girls exclude, are excluded or exclusive,
it is when the supreme being is conceived of as a male god,
it is when the supreme being is conceived of as a female god,
that there is no gender-neutral inclusiveness,
(that there is no sexual inclusiveness,
that there is no physical anthropic inclusiveness,
that there is no anthropic inclusiveness,)*
that there is no inclusiveness.
[*: lines between parentheses and the word principal
may be deleted altogether, but not separately]
All forms of partial physical subanthropic exclusivism somehow
related to the sexual and/or excremental functions or parts
of the human body can be labeled "sexual-excremental" (X.145).
Sexual-excremental matters are a, or the main, concern of traditional
exclusivist morality, clerical, bourgeois, proletarian or suchlike.
Many pages in sacred books and codes of law have been, or still are, spent
on conveying to the religious believer or the country's citizen whose
urinogenital organs 'he' is allowed to see or touch, or rather not to see
or touch, and in which place he is allowed to eject his semen, or rather
not to eject it.
The religious-minded who find the present classification of exclusivisms
sometimes rather detailed or too explicit, particularly where it concerns
sexuality, discharge of bodily waste matter and nudity, can simply be
advised to read the relevant tales and passages of their own books.
On the other hand, they should, perhaps, not be advised to do that, for it
might merely confirm them in their opinion that it would be normal that
moral notions such as decent and indecent do not so much
refer to the selling of one's conscience but to the selling of one's body;
and do not so much refer to discussing the erection of nuclear missiles or
other weapons for killing male and female human adults and children, but to
discussing the erection of a penis or ('even worse') a clitoris.
Sexual-excremental matters are also the study material of sociobiologists,
and when we call a spade "a spade", we do in this respect nothing else than
what these people do when writing about the same objects and activities.
However, contrary to the position taken here, a certain subspecies of
sociobiologically inspired thinkers try to 'warrant' ideological
presuppositions by means of biological-materialist analyses and biased
speculations.
While explaining to people what the penis and vagina were (and still are)
'intended' for, this kind of sociobiologist is not so honest to draw the
conclusion that in that case their hands were never made to hold
banknotes; or that their lips were never made to say prayers; or that
their lungs were never made to inhale the toxic smoke of tobacco.
No such member of the sociobiological ranks will ever argue with the same
fervor that the human body was not supposed to be used for killing other
human bodies, or for building weapons aimed at the wholesale destruction
of life on Earth.
Exclusionist —note the adjective— sociobiologists have
willingly promoted racist, antifeminist, antihomosexualist and similar
causes by drawing normative conclusions from the descriptions of mere
correlations (if that is what they are) and from the utilitarian use or
misuse of the concept of function and the value of happiness.
The ideology of these exclusivists is nothing else than a doctrine of
naturalness in a more modern,
'scientific' guise.
This is very obvious when it is argued that 'nature is interested in making
its creatures like what is good for them' —as if nature had
any 'creatures'— and when this is used as a premise to 'prove' that
certain groups of human beings (and the conveniently forgotten nonhuman
animal beings) should not do what they like.
It follows from the variability and diversity of sexuality that sexual
exclusivism or sexualism (X.291) probably has the largest number
of possible subdivisions of all forms of partial physical subanthropic
irrelevantism.
It follows from the overemphasis upon sexual affairs that
interfactorial sexual exclusivism is
an important
unitary manifestation of it.
It is
exism re the sexual qualities, that is,
gender and/or sexuality, as distinct from the nonsexual qualities of
human or anthropically conceived beings.
Its antithesis is suprasexual (anthropic) inclusivity
(N.291.1).
The most marked physical sexual qualities are those of having male and/or
female, sexual organs and all the characteristics that usually go with it.
The fact that a person's body has male or female parts and predicates, or
both, is a very easy object of social categorization.
Sex- or gender-related exclusivism (X.582) therefore
probably is, or has been, one of the most widespread and thoroughgoing
irrelevantisms of (male and female) human history.
Yet, it is not necessarily the case that one of the two genders would
always have had to 'suffer from' sex-discrimination, whereas the other
would always have been better off because of this exclusivist attitude and
practise.
That a nonrelevant distinction is made between female and male, human
beings by no means implies in itself that the total situation of the one
gender is ameliorated, and that of the other deteriorated.
Or, it may be that the situation of one gender is better in times of
peace but worse in times of war.
Moreover, what is 'worse' and what is called "suffering" may depend on an
individual's or group's peculiar wants and interests.
In this context worse and suffering are often used as purely
happiness-catenary terms.
The occurrence of suffering or bad (to refer to situations)
in these terms is not what concerns discrimination as discrimination
tho.
Theoretically, it could be that a community that discriminates on the
basis of gender is a happier one on the whole than one which does not.
This is precisely a reason why we are forced to reject utilitarianism and
sociobiological doctrines which rest on it.
Those who reject it with us should therefore not continue to speak about
sex discrimination as if it were by definition a form of injustice in
which one party must endure pain and distress, while the other would only
benefit from it.
A gender distinction is relevant or not, regardless of anyone 'suffering'
or benefiting from it, unless perhaps, happiness or utility is the sole
value embraced.
(Note that when we speak ourselves of "something or someone suffering
from sexism or exclusivism", it is the subject of exclusivism,
that is, the moral agent or decision-maker, who is said to
'suffer', not in a factual, happiness-catenary, but in a
normative, sense.)
Gender-centered exclusivism (X.582.0) is the interfactorial
variant of gender-related exclusivism.
It stands for policies of sexual apartheid and such things as an
obsession or sentimental preoccupation with the distinction male/female.
It also stands for showing no or too little attention for sexism and other
forms of gender-based irrelevantism.
Its antithesis is gender-transcending inclusivity (N.582.0).
Gender-based exclusivism (X.582.1) is the
infrafactorial variant whose antithesis
is gender-neutral inclusivity (N.582.1).
(To illustrate the difference between the two manifestations of exclusivism
and the two facets of inclusivity: the traditional so-called 'neuter' use
of he and man is gender-centered and -based exism; the
reactionary use of she instead of he for human beings in
general is also gender-centered and -based; the antisexist use of she
or he and men and women when not dealing with sexual or
sexualist matters, is gender-neutral, but still gender-centered;
and our use of
'e,
'er
and person in contexts which are not sexual, nor sexualistic,
is both gender-neutral and -transcending.)
Two but too obvious
dimensional manifestations of gender-based exism
are male exclusivism (X.582.50), the first complemental, and female
exclusivism (X.582.51), the second complemental.
The
aggrandizemental components of these
exisms are androcentrism and gyn(ec)ocentrism
respectively.
'Masculinism' is a breed of androcentrism if, and to the extent that, it
exclusively serves the interests of men or boys, even, or especially, when
this infringes the equality of the sexes.
Similarly, 'feminism' is, properly speaking, a breed of gynocentrism
if, and to the extent that, it exclusively serves the
interests of women or girls. However, those 'feminists' who
protect the interests of women and girls against the effects of
sex discrimination, and those 'masculinists' who protect the
interests of men and boys against the effects of sex discrimination,
work for an antisexist cause. They take an interest in
the conditions of females and males in order to contribute
to the equality of both sexes, that is, to gender-neutral
inclusivity.
A sentimental
abnegational component of male exism
is misandry, and of female exism misogyny.
Both
componential manifestations are
nonintermediary.
Of the intermediary manifestations we have examined many cases of
lingual, gender-based and
-centered irrelevantism in the
Book of Instruments.
This was necessary as we could not even have communicated in a
gender-neutral and -transcending language, if we had not first disposed
of these sexist or sexually irrelevantistic elements in the
traditional variant of this language.
Since this
operational manifestation of gender-related
exclusivism is already dealt with at several other places in this
Model, we will not discuss it here
anymore.
The same applies to the principal operations of gender-related
exclusivism, particularly to supreme androcentrism.
With
the canonical prose poem at the beginning of this
section no further comment is needed to describe the Model position on
this sort of supreme violation of
the norm of inclusivity.
There is also a
bilateral manifestation of
gender-based exclusivism (X.582.13).
The abnegational component of it involves the denial or neglect of
hermaphroditism and/or androgyny or gynandry.
If sentimental, this concerns discomfort or ignorance with respect to
androgyny or gynandry.
On the other hand, androgyny or gynandry can also be overemphasized.
Typical of this breed of bilateral sexualism is the incitement directed at
men to develop their so-called 'feminine' qualities, and the incitement
directed at women to develop their so-called 'masculine' qualities.
This proposal draws on the very presuppositions of unilateral
gender-based exclusivism itself, and merely perpetuates them.
The antithetical gender-neutral and -transcending position is to
develop or not to develop one's qualities, regardless of what
sexualists call them. Only those human qualities are (wholly)
'feminine' which no male can develop, and (wholly) 'masculine'
which no female can develop. It is, then, both nonsensical to
ask human beings to develop the qualities they cannot develop,
and to ask them to develop the partially 'feminine', partially
'masculine' qualities they can develop indeed. For femininity,
masculinity, gynandry and androgyny are neither good nor bad in
themselves.
