“He”ist or “She”ist & others

“He”ist or “She”ist
---Man is What He Looks Like to women and Vice Versa

Thomas Zyngard

It’s fun to follow the debate about the sexist columnist. From the debate, I have got an impression that the term “sexist” is quite a bit negative: the columnist justified himself not a sexist while his accusers charge him with it.

The focus of this debate seems to me that you are doomed to be wrong if you are sexist. Is that so? To an idiot English learner like me, however, the term sexist sounds neutral: since humans are separated as he and she (yup, pcly we’d better have some others like “g-“ and “l-“ included), either of us including you and me are “he”ist (what a word it is!) or “she”ist. You’ve got to be "sexist" before you are desexed, right? (Don’t blame me for my poor English, my dear English teacher!)

You’ll be feminist if you are female and you must be malist (so sorry, I can hardly find a proper word or term to be equalized. Mal-, fortunately mal-, otherwise, dear me, which must be deliberately coined by female?), if you’re male. Any societies in human civilizations across the world must be sexist: either patricentric or matricentric. Can you find a neutral one?

Any sexual moralities, therefore, must be as well sexist: synchronical and male-oriented (like the concubine system) or sequential and female-oriented (like to have the right to make abortion, divorce and re-marriage, etc).

Can you find a neutral one that fits both (don’t tell me it is prostitution system, though as a compensation of faded concubine and its counterparts it exists for thousands of years ever since)? (Here’s a story I happened to read from an essay in a column, which describes how a mother trains her boys to put down the toilet board after their pissing. What a good example to show the dilemma any equalitarian has to face: is there any position to fit both man and woman?)

The existing custom of the Western Civilization results from mutual adaptations to each other of both male and female. I definitely adhere to it that either man or woman cannot do whatever he or she likes without taking the opposite into pre-consideration.

Man is what a man is in woman’s eyes and vice versa. Both of them “are supposed to be nurturers (and nurturees) in society” even you’re an alien like me! The society is hence formed.

All human beings are social creatures rather than beasts. If women have the alleged power “to choose how they want to dress and how they want to behave,” Jesus, how about man’s power if he dare behave not as a “civilized one”?

You’ll fight like a lioness (obviously I dare not use some other word say, a bitch) in the wildness with your fists and teeth, k-(kiss/kill) him against (or for) his harassment, offensive activities or even attacks without rushing to help of the society, to cops, taken for instance, to those representative of the civilization with pistol and pencil, both are metaphors of penis or phallus in psychoanalysis? Fini. (2003)

MsTong@mstong

(台灣獼猴的族群是母系社會啊)，或許應該説，所有荒野叢林中的群居生物，都是「母系」的吧？最爲常見的蜂、蟻不必説都是的了。經常可以看到國家地理之類自然生態紀錄片中的獅群，表面上看來有隻雄獅稱「王」似的。其實，衹不過是作爲「面首」的存在而已。衹要出現更强大的新「面首」，那個老弱病殘的就得乖乖滾蛋，連自己未成年的子孫後代，都得任由新「王」逐一咬死。以至於研究證明，雄獅的偉岸身形並非爲了獵食，而是爲了延續子孫。弱鷄根本沒機會得到繁衍機會。衹能流離失所死而後已。曾經跟一女性主義者開玩笑說，法國那個波伏娃將女性稱作「第二性」實在是天大誤會。大自然是雌性傾向的。哺乳動物從胚胎開始，都是雌性存在。一直到很後階段纔逐漸分化出雄性。故此，雄性纔是真正的「第二性」生物。雄性稱王衹是人類特有的生物例外。現在歐美各地的女性主義運動正在竭力推翻或者逆轉這個人類例外。從而最終回歸自然、回歸叢林生態。到時候，又回到祖先那種真正的母系社會啦。

【堅離地傾・沈旭暉 116 ⛪️】王少勇牧師：人在海外，亂世凝聚香港魂（下）

[https://youtu.be/iG_40tpgI48

王牧師提出嘅觀點極具意義！沈生之類極為抗拒基督教的學人，除咗唯物論無神論科學主義影響外，更係教會墮落的結果。失去價值理念的現代教會幾乎成為靠威逼利誘玩弄教徒嘅行銷機構，靠討好政權及愚民來攫取一己之利。此危機遍及全球，包括教廷。所謂末世，此之謂也！遠觀美國現狀，便知正邪神魔之戰，恰恰就在教會之內。作為價值觀嘅傳承捍衛者，若然不能振作奮起，重新成為社會中堅，則普世文明危矣、殆矣！]
這是油管上的留言，轉貼在此謹供參考。不能忽略末世中教會本身的責任。作爲信靠主耶穌的我們，之所以敢於以自身卑微力量面對邪魔，皆因上主大能。這就是我們的希望所在。阿門！