english version

Gender theory as an example of disjunction and nothingness

 It would probably be superficial to claim that the basic ideas of unnaturalness are just the extremes of individualism and relativism and not explore the story of this thinking of disjunction further. An example and at the same time a proof of deep disjunction is the gender theory. According to this theory, the “natural sex”, the natural essence of an individual, is just a regulation ideal produced by the body. Culture enforces gender onto this sex, some kind of cultural built-in over the natural essence – the mind, awareness, history and society, something that could be accepted as a part of the traditional order. Gender is criticized by the apologists of this theory for being unfairly constructed (by male power over women and enforced on other races) and given by culture only, therefore removable and substitutable by something else (see 56, 57).

 This theory was general, therefore it applies to all creatures and in the human area also to different races and sexual orientations. The aim of this theory is to deconstruct cultural normative layers over natural essence called gender and create new ones. It is often not clear what they should look like; anyway they have to be egalitarian. While at different human groups equality of ethnicities is important, in the case of the relationship between men and women this has great impact and traditionally determined roles are destroyed. No one has ever gone so deep into deconstruction of norms on which families and the whole human coexistence are based and gone so far in destroying the traditional order, offering only nothingness in return. All this gets even worse as man is stingy with instincts. While an animal born in a zoo has the instincts and when let out to the wild, can stand a chance, man is born with minimum instincts, practically “naked” with intellect only, waiting for an upbringing by which they acquire most of their qualities; men and women accept their roles (see 79).

 If gender campaigns find something, which prevents their success, it is usually a part of the gender that deals with different parental roles. Without family, the roles of men and women have minimum differences; the role of a childless woman never differed too much from the role of a man. This requirement for approximation of roles will lead to a pressure to change the parental role, which could eventually be destructive for the future of mankind. Men will not change their role much; women will accept the role of a childless woman because there is no role containing motherhood available. Natural development will not create it, it is not created theoretically and it cannot be created because such a construction is highly utopic.

 Manipulating and social constructions of men are much easier than those of animals and therefore traditional gender is necessary and precaution of changes is needed. However I do not advocate the original gender completely, a new environment can bring about changes that reflect the natural mechanisms of market and democracy in the area of gender, i.e. equality before the law and equal opportunities. These changes of gender in developed countries happened long ago and currently there are destructive excess campaigns that I understand as the results of unnatural life.

 Children raised by animals will never become humans again, because adoptive animal parents raised them in their gender. Therefore I think that people without the traditional gender will never become humans too. They do not necessarily have to act bestially (but, who knows?) but the sense of why gender exists – ensuring the existence of the next generations – vanishes. Moreover, children are not born spontaneously anymore to automatically wake the instincts of their parents and engage them into their roles. Traditional order (gender) has a very important function to bring young people to family. However, today we can see a destroyed gender, especially by many cases of bad upbringing and parental incompetence. Further interventions under the influence of individualistic gender theory can completely break down passing on the traditional gender to children and therefore cause total anomy.

 Family is static, dual natural mechanism based on certain essential human qualities (sex drive, maternal instincts) working on the base of the traditional order. There is no dialectics inside of a family. A family cannot develop, it is an environment for reproduction based on the same principles and the roles of parents are given. Searching for another model cannot be done via dialectics and inner development. New families with new partners can be formed but there will be no new principle. If synthesis should be formed, new man would have to be created and this cannot happen by destruction of a family. But no role of a “synthetic” man has ever been created, there is no theory talking about him and in my opinion it is not possible and people will accept their familiar roles of childless promiscuous partners under the influence of deconstruction of the current order. Fortunately, gender theories are currently being questioned (see 78).

 At the same time it is important to express myself about feminism in general: In the original pre-industrial family, there was a complementary division of work on the family farms, where the dominant individual ruled. Apart from dominant men, there have been many cases of ruling housewives who manipulated with their husbands’ incomes, as well as with the husbands. Unnaturalness was created in the industrial family, where the woman was dependent on her husband’s wage and she was more of a housemaid. The father did not participate on the upbringing of children so much anymore and required natural authority more, which also led to distortion of ideals including general male models of great leaders (Hitler and Stalin) and the ruling of ideologies. Feministic ideas about male overpower are derived from this unnatural model.

 The whole problem of prevailing feminist requirements is not designed generally, the activities of woman in a family are not inspected and maternity is rarely appreciated or advocated. Thinking reduced only to making money is, as any fragmental ideal, unproductive, utopic and discontinuous. Representative sources do not consider maternity an obligation, not at least a moral obligation; at best they somehow “get it over with” (see 7, 14, 56).

 Boys are raised in a feministic way in something that opposes heroism, knighthood etc. These attitudes are not forbidden, they are even demanded, but the upbringing is not designed to teach them to boys and it is more comfortable to be “girlish”. In the end women themselves find it unsuitable, they are naturally attracted to admiration to manly behaviour of foreigners, especially Muslims. They often choose to tolerate covering up and beating over living with a feministic “non-man”. This “non-male” upbringing leads to weakening of will, pacifism and succumbing to evil and all those relativist approaches. All that has been said about relativizing is multiplied with current feminism. Girls are not led to have families but only to succeed in their jobs, which usually means putting off having children and limiting family, in some cases even giving up the possibility to have one. And gender theory has not impacted peoples’ lives yet; the destructive phenomena listed above are rather based only on overall unnatural culture.

 Most of gender-oriented feminist works (e.g. 78) do not differentiate relevant facts: justice and equality. Equality is on the base of Marxist ideological background considered to be automatically just, but it is a mistake – justice usually can do without equality (only equality before law is necessary), natural female contribution to the society needs to be evaluated fairly within timeless thinking. Equality of male and female role is not necessary for that.