The purpose of my writing is not to take sides with or against genderism, but to promote a clarifying dialogue. As long as the representatives of the genders seek to distance themselves from the other's positions, as long as they seek to defeat (persuade) each other, the struggle (even if justified) will result in resistance and will not lead to progress. At the moment, this struggle is full of emotions, fears and tensions on both sides, and often leads to below-the-belt blows, with the disputants seeking to humiliate and discredit each other. The majority of original genderism's supporters are women, while its opponents are both women and men. 

It is important to remember what was the original meaning of genderism (gender theory). It was initially a branch of feminism that fights against social discrimination of the sexes. (This theory is misinterpreted nowdays. The essence of this misinterpretation is that people are free to choose their gender. We do not deal with this misinterpretation here.) Originally the theory did not deny that gender is biologically determined, but points out that gender roles are the result of the acquisition of social behaviour patterns in the mind, i.e. they are essentially stereotypes and templates. Patriarchal (male-centred) society mentally imposes these on the personality from an early age and even later. These are the patterns that lead us to buy, for example, pink dresses and dolls for girls and blue trousers and cars for boys. Genderists want to eliminate these premature gender role templates and gender stereotypes in adult society, claiming that they result in the discrimination of women. 

So, the story is about the fact that a person has a biological sex and a conventional gender role is built on top of it, and if one deviates (unintentionally) from this traditional role, one is punished, discredited and even ostracised. Conventional female and male gender roles appear in dress (woman: nylon stockings, high heels, make-up; man: trousers, sports shoes, suit, tie), behaviour (woman: background role, subordination, expression of emotions; man: controlling role, suppression of emotions, mental and physical ability, emphasis on power), role-taking (woman: child-rearing, household management; man: money-earning activities, hobbies). 

Who knows me, wots that I cannot be accused of preferring the traditional female role. Even as an adolescent, I caused consternation in my village among old women by talking to adult men as an equal partner, I am not a 'feminine' woman, I like to wear trousers and sports jeans, I never wear make-up, my behaviour is controlled, my attitude is firm, I put intellectual skills before emotional expression. In this sense, I would be a typical genderist. But... 

In our time, gender roles seem to be blurred and reversed. The other day at the cashier's desk in a swimming pool, there was a man who was biologically male, but a woman in tone and gesture. As I handed over the deposit fee in exchange for the locker key, I emphasized that I was asking for a key to the women's locker room. The cashier, in his girlish embarrassment, handed me a key for a man's locker, which I only realised when I entered and searched for my locker. Hm... I'm not man enough to do that, so I walked back to the pay office to change the key. I had a good chuckle about the incident. This was the cashier's way of instinctively letting me know that I was a man compared to him, while I pointed out that I was asking for a woman's locker, precisely because I wasn't convinced he was correctly delimiting my gender identity. He respectfully apologised and I let him know with a kind, now feminine smile that I accepted him. 

Genderism needs to be addressed because it raises legitimate questions in many respects, but if we do not seek to clarify the concept of gender identity, it leads to unreasonable excesses. Genderism uses the concept of sexism, which (by analogy with racism) is discrimination on the basis of sex. In order to avoid sexism, e.g. in Sweden in the nursery all children play with the same toys, use the same dress and even little boys have to pee sitting down to avoid discrimination against little children. It is necessary to draw the line here. It is biologically determined that a boy can pee standing up and sitting down, while a girl can only pee sitting down. On what basis, then, do we identify sitting pee as the only salutary solution? This would be analogous to saying that if there are blind people, then everyone should have their eyes closed so that the blinds are not disadvantaged. With this requirement, we are restricting the freedom of little boys, while we cannot extend the freedom of little girls. This provision is therefore unreasonable and limiting. 

Another example of sexism is the use of the naked female body as a commodity in advertising to sell something. There is a product that has nothing to do with sex, women or nudity, yet they put a naked woman on it to make it easier to sell. But the advertising industry is motivated by the profit, it knows the nature of the man who, if he sees a good woman on the wrapping, will buy it even if he doesn't need the product. In fact, the woman is more inclined to buy it too because she compares her to herself and thinks that if she consumes the product, she will be like the woman on the packaging. These kinds of advertisements, rather disgustingly, use people's gut instincts to influence their buying habits. But the solution is not to ban them from now on, because that's sexism. 

Women like to be beautiful. According to genderism, this is because it is instilled in them by the beauty industry and the expectations men have of them, which they try to live up to. I don't think that's true. Notice that in addition to biologically determined gender roles, there is also an evolutionarily determined gender role. The latter is not a social construct, and in this sense cannot be eliminated. It is that men seek feminine women because they carry the evolutionary code that such women will be good mothers to their offspring. He looks for a beautiful woman because she arouses his desire more, which makes it more certain that his offspring will be produced. Conversely, the woman seeks a masculine man because it is evolutionarily coded that such a man will protect her and her offspring, and it is evolutionarily coded into the beautiful woman that she will use feminine practices to seduce men rather than wanting to be a nuclear physicist. And this is where genderism fails. For that the uncountable majority don't want to live according to the gender theory. Genderism should have the basic principle, if it doesn't want to become impassible, to extend the freedom of genders to evolutionary-biological limits, so that those who wish to enjoy freedom can do so. 

Women's emancipation has indeed led to a situation where women have the opportunity to live both female and male gender identities in a social sense, and this can lead to role confusion for both genders. But the solution of this role confusion will not be found by following isms. The solution is to increase awareness and empathy. By awareness, I mean that a woman who wants to live both roles should be able to switch roles consciously. If she is a 'man' at work, she should be a 'woman' in a social sense when she gets home. The family is definitely the scene of evolutionary role-play, and no one has yet invented a better one. If we want to keep the family as a basic unit (man, woman, children), we have to assume the 'traditional' female role. Of course, we can live differently, but we cannot make it obligatory for society as a whole. 

And by empathy, I don't just mean that a woman must be able to put herself in a man's shoes, but a culture of behaviour. Why for the woman? Because the woman educates (ennobles) the child and the man, the woman makes society, life, sex, everything worth living for, more sophisticated, more demanding. And a culture of behaviour means knowing when and how to dress and behave (we don't put the top or bottom of our body out when we go to exams, but we can do the same when we go to parties). It means developing a positive sense of feminine consciousness. We know what we want, with whom, when, and if we don't want it, we are able to give a clear signal of our intentions. 

When I visited India, I thought it was important to show my respect for the culture by the way I dressed. I didn't wear a sari because I'm not Hindu, but I wore a long skirt and put a scarf over my head to enter the holy places. Even though I was in my fifties, I was still looked at with longing by much younger men (no one at home even looked at me). I had to confront how attractive a white woman was to them. But my behaviour was respectful and aloof. A woman can look at a man saying: "To your place!" (Trouble is, if she looks at her husband like that, she can say goodbye to him...) The one who is cleaner is the stronger, her thought will be fulfilled. 

However, there may be situations where there is a clear physical dominance. In such a situation, it is inappropriate to resist, but to let happen what happens. Less resistance will result in less physical injury, which will be easier to recover from. It is important for the woman to realise that she is not the same as her body, that whatever happens to her body is only the body that suffers. So, whatever has happened to you, get up and move on with an unwinking face. The soul is imperturbable and eternal, the soul cannot be humiliated, it cannot be dishonoured, and you are a soul. You accept yourself as a perfect spirit, whose vehicle is the body, which is subject to impermanence, sickness and death. Nurture this body, cherish it, so that you may dwell in it long and willingly. Don't want to be cleverer, the male thinks himself cleverer anyway... Listen to your feelings, these override his cleverness.

If you live like this, you will not need genderism to be admitted and accepted. 

Margaret Rhasoda-Varga
UCCM head-master
(The sky touches the earth, excerpt)