The Rise of the American Hermaphrodite; Or, the Tending Shift of Cultural Narrative Since c.1950.
Gregg Zegarelli Esq.
Managing Shareholder at Technology & Entrepreneurial Ventures Law Group, PC
Thomas Jefferson said, "[John Adams is a] hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman." [1]
Actually, some people believe that Jefferson made that statement. But, the attribution to Jefferson is apparently now debunked. Therefore, to be more precise with the attribution, it is now believed that the words were not published by Jefferson, but rather published by James Callender, a Jeffersonian-favored partisan newspaper editor during the presidential campaign between Jefferson and Adams. [*1] Some say that Callender was merely Jefferson's public conduit, but Callender was a social firebrand in his own right, so it's tough to determine with assurity. Alas, the world will never know the true originating source of the words.
Nevertheless, this "Tactical Insult" [2] resonates for its clever and brutal wit. We can particularly savor that subtle use of "which" rather than "who." Indeed, what makes "wit" witty is the oft clever exposition of a truth in an artful elevated humorous expression. Sometimes it's tough to tell, of course, ala Seth MacFarlane's Family Guy and Anthony Jeselnick, each of whom are geniuses of exposing social truth by clever and brutal wit, with perhaps it being said that the respective elevation comes from two different directions.
Irrespective of attribution, some people hold that the referenced statement proves that rhetorical negative campaigning with ad hominem vitriol didn't start recently, but way back at the beginning of it all, with the Founding Fathers. And, even better, some people hold that it demonstrates that partisan media existed back then, as well. Perhaps no worse now.
But, let us put all that aside. That is important political science, but not the focus of this post.
The focus of this post is in the hidden premise of the rhetoric.
The author of a rhetorical statement presupposes, as part of the choice of the rhetorical tool, that the hidden premise is accepted by the audience. True, it might not be accepted, but we presuppose that no effective rhetorician chooses ineffective rhetoric. Therefore, we can safely presuppose that Jefferson or Callendar, as the case may be, assumed that the audience held to the hidden premise, which thereby made the expressed rhetorical statement persuasive.
"What hidden premise?" you ask? That's the part that flies under the conscious radar. That's the part that, even if untrue, draws you toward accepting it without you knowing it. (Jeselnik is a master at the twist from presupposition.) Here is the statement with the hidden premise:
[Everyone knows that men have force and firmness, and everyone knows that women have gentleness and sensibility. Therefore, John Adams is a] hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman."
The rhetoric is only effective if the audience presupposes the implicit truth of the hidden premise, tending to say "yes" rather than "no." Jefferson was a socio-political wordsmith genius, and Callender was certainly better than merely a very competent wordsmith. Both were careful with their words and their rhetoric. Rhetoric needs a hook, the presupposition.
Now, we all know that there are many expressions 250 years ago, some good, some bad, that are tied into the cultural time and context. Yes, of course, we know the inverse premise is also true; that is—now as then—men can be gentle and sensible, and women can be forceful and firm. But, let us put aside morality time travel for today's critical-thinking exercise. [3] We already know that Abraham Lincoln and Margaret Thatcher are great examples of force and firmness matched with gentleness and sensibility, if not also our moms and dads. [4]
But wisdom requires us to be careful to distinguish general rules by tending inclinations from the particulars and the exceptions, and not to induce the summer from the swallow. [5]
The referenced statement, made by one or two masters with the rhetorical purpose of persuasion, nevertheless necessarily extracts the experiential tending dominant characteristics in each of the binary genders for the relevant audience, certainly at the time when stated. Moreover, a further corollary to the above-stated hidden premise is that those gender-binary-influenced tending characteristics are virtuous (good) by implication in the respective genders. Thusly, we can press the hidden premise even further, to wit:
[Everyone knows that the virtue of a man is to have force and firmness, and everyone knows the virtue of a woman is to have gentleness and sensibility. Therefore, John Adams is a] hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman. [Adams is a hideous thing of a being that fails to have the virtue of the two types of human beings.]"
Think of it this way: If the listener objects to the existence of tending dominant characteristics of men and women, respectively, that objection creates resistance to the rhetoric's effectiveness. Similarly, if the listener objects that the tending dominant qualities are not virtuous in the respective persons, that objection creates resistance to the rhetoric's effectiveness. That is, if the listener is saying to self, "What is he talking about, men aren't firm and women aren't gentle, and, even so, those are bad qualities anyway," the rhetoric will tend to fail. Moreover, the rhetorician does not even want the audience thinking about it too long, "What is he talking about? I know firm women and gentle...men." The rhetorician needs to have the listener already agreeing to the hidden premises and thereby automatically to conclude that Adams lacks the creatively selected "better virtues" of each gender. In doing so, the conclusion is likely to follow nicely for effective rhetoric to make its point. The subconscious hook is there and the audience (both men and women) bite on it.
We keep in mind that the statement being made is not critical thinking or instructive, but rhetoric; that is, the expressive artifact intended to persuade. There is a difference.
Now, if we're together so far, let's dig even deeper...
In this rhetorically stated differential between men and women, at least part of it is time-contextual social and perhaps thereby a self-fulfilling prophecy. Alas, at the time of the referenced statement, women did not have the social right to vote on the basis of gender, which constrained their personal and social attributes by social framework contrivance. Some people (men and women) might say women were thereby socially oppressed. [6] Of course, either way, we know that the American legal construct properly evolved with the times and gender identity has been equalized under the constraint of law; that is, people are required to be treated equally under the law, as a general rule. I am not suggesting the task is completed, but rather only an overt social and legal evolution. [7, *6]
However, another part of the gender differential is not time-contextual social, but biological, physiological and experiential.
The natural science of it is that XX-women and XY-men have different chemical compositions, and different body parts, which thereby implicate different natural inclinations (tendencies), by body parts and physiology alone, and then that differential is even further expanded if or by any actual use of those parts in the reproductive cycle. [8, 9, 10, 11, *7, 12, 13]
Therefore, part of the differential between men and women is grounded in a "social construct," (again, perhaps a self-fulfilling prophecy) and part of that differential between men and women is grounded in a "natural construct." [14] The two "constructs" may be related or correlated, but they are critical-thinking analytically different constructs.
[The term "self-fulfilling prophecy" means that the conclusive social condition exists because the antecedent condition is made to exist by social contrivance. The conclusion naturally follows the premise that is socially contrived and not inherently natural. A person who is prevented by social contrivance from reading, will tend not to achieve systemic education, which will tend to prevent financial freedom, which will tend to prevent cultural elevation that prevents access to resources for reading.] [*13]
We stop here. Let us dare to compare, for critical thinking purposes, a "black man" and a "white man." This comparison is essentially elemental and simple: The attribute of differentiation is color, which is substantively immaterial. The existence of differentiation by color in society arises from society itself. If there is a substantive difference between the humans by "black culture" and "white culture," it is because society made it so. What society has caused, society must cure. Society caused the blight of racial prejudice and society must cure it. The cause was by contrivance and the cure is by contrivance. [15]
Now, let us dare to compare, for critical thinking purposes, a "white man" and a "black woman." This comparison is essentially compound and complex: The attribute of differentiation by color remains similarly substantively immaterial. As to the attribute of color, gender is immaterial. And, again, as to color, what society has broken society must fix.
However, the attribute of gender is not the equivalent to the attribute of color, because the attributes are of a different character; to wit: Color is facade. Gender is not facade. Gender is not a superficial distinction, but a substantive distinction; and, not only a substantive distinction, but an essential basic distinction by natural scientific facts and the experiential facts that tend to follow as a natural consequence.
What society has caused, society must cure. Society caused the blight of gender legal inequality and society must fix it. "Social constructs" are developed as society determines. The cause was by contrivance and the cure is by contrivance.
But, we recognize that it is not simply that elemental for the case of gender. "Natural constructs" (or "Nature's Constructs") are not caused or granted by society; therefore, the natural comparative differentiation can only be pressed or equalized so far before it becomes folly. Mother Nature and Father Time, being the creators of the Natural Construct, can be persuaded, but never conquered, and to suggest otherwise, fails in wisdom and all experiential common sense. [16] Thusly says Charles Dickens through Mr. Bumble, who famously frustratingly called the law "a ass — a idiot" for asserting a legal structure that contradicts common sense gender experience (the law suggesting that Mr. Bumble controls his wife).
At least a critical mass of a current rhetorical narrative has evolved into a tendency to conflate and to homogenize all the comparative attributes as equals, but they are not equals. The race attribute is not the same as the gender attribute, which are not the same as the religion attribute. (Religion, which is not the subject here, is neither so superficial as race, nor as scientific as gender.) And, therefore, accordingly, for those who can behold it as critical thinkers, all discrimination is not created equal. The homogenized legal standard is confusing the wisdom standard. [17, 18] Wisdom dissects human differentiations.
The comparative attributes are not equal because they are not of the same character, and to suggest that they all the same in character is asinine and idiotic, as Mr. Bumble might say, if not certainly foolish. [*17, *18] Rhetoric homogenizes, conflates and confuses by a mental shell game, so that what appears for one is made applicable to the other.
As to the natural constructural difference between men and women, no XY-man absorbs into his natural reproductive system another human being, or gestates the evolution of a potentiate [*7] for 9 months (perhaps loving it as such or as a child) [*11, *7] or has a child suckle from his mammalian nipple. By natural tendencies, XY-men simply do not nurture in the same manner as XX-women, by chemistry, by physiology, and by experience. If this is not absolutely true, then it is sufficiently true by general rule tendency inclinations for the purpose of determining social order with lucidity.
What XY-man is so arrogant or foolish to say that he can empathize with an XX-woman with regard to reproductive issues? Impossible. Nature has denied him that capability. Aesop taught as much. [19] If there ever were one single issue regarding which XY-men should be denied suffrage, it would be that one unique issue of zygote gestation, which is socially unique and special, and for which the XY-man has no frame of reference to judge her wisely. [*7]
There is no XY-man who is naturally connected to human life, physically or psychologically, in the same natural manner as an XX-woman, and by this connection, women have an evolved natural general rule tendency of intuition, which is a type of feeling and emotion that cannot be said to be entirely rational or irrational, but perhaps a rationality that cannot be articulated or expressed, combined with a unique sensitivity. [I might draw on the fact that, when my children were infants, my wife could sleep through jack-hammering, but she would jump out of bed with one small cry of her infant...while there was jack-hammering, and no one made her do it, or taught her to do it. This was her natural tendency. Whether her tendency is representative of XX-birthing mothers is for each reader to judge by experience and common sense.]
Now, this is not to say that men do not love their children completely, as such, but the effectively timeless natural constructive principle, by application of general rules and tendencies, is that hormones, body parts, and experiential circumstances tend to induce nurturing inclinations differently in the different genders. To make chemistry, physiology, capability and experience irrelevant would seem to be more foolish than wise. This is not to say that there are not contrary exceptions, but wisdom rests on general rules and tending inclinations. [*4, 20, 21]
But, lest this post be misunderstood, I will clarify something critically important; to wit:
The natural construct inclinations of XX-women, and the perhaps more detached natural construct inclinations of XY-men, do not necessarily make one better than the other, and anyone who would suggest it would be foolish. For meat, a fork. For soup, a spoon. Each tool has its common virtue by general type, as well as its virtue by unique particularities. But using the wrong tool is folly.
[*8, 15, *17, *18] Often conflated, intelligence and wisdom are not the same thing [*17, 18], and goodness and wisdom are not the same thing. [22, *12, *21] Wisdom reports to itself.
Anyone—anyone—who is not insecurely pandering to acceptance in a conformist social narrative, but rather who is guided only by experience, reason and wisdom, will fixate on one fact taught over and over by the sages:
Tendencies can be as much a power as a weakness, and an unprotected tendency can self-defeat. Some things must be balanced, tempered by its opposite, and protected from itself and its own tendencies.
It might be too strong or too weak, to hard or too soft. [23] And bias by experience does not necessarily make it better. [*8]
Balance and harmony, whether expressed by the Western Socratics [24] or the Eastern Yin and Yang [25], the essence is the same: two paths to the same destination.
Thusly, "The hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman."
This statement does not need to be absolutely true (now or then) in order to extract a point of observation and wisdom from it. Thus the adage, "Sapientia perfectam esse non habet, sed astutam esse habet." ("Wisdom does not have to be perfect, but it does have to be astute.")
With that foundation, I will briefly also suggest an observation to the current narrative sourced from three pervasive horizontal social conditions that shifted more overtly after World War II, c.1950. At the time of the so-called Great Society, America was at the peak of its economic and military power, which was short-lived. [*22, 26] America was a very different country at the time of frameworking the Great Society, and its decision-making was framed in a different context within itself and within the World, now inapplicable. [*22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30]
These three conditions work together exponentially and may be considered as causes (effects unto their own history) that have changed the tone of the current narrative. The issue is not whether the narrative tone is now better or worse, but only that the narrative has tended change, and we try to observe some framework upon which to think about it in more critical detail, even if to refute it.
1. The Rise of Systemic Christianity. Prior to 1954, "Under God" was not contained in the Pledge of Allegiance [*22, 31] and "In God We Trust" was not placed on money. [31.a] Both government endorsements respecting religion subconsciously indoctrinate American culture by systemic endorsement of theism, more particularly precisely, monotheism, which the spirit of the US Constitution abhors. [*7] Religion naturally follows god by the tendency that is proven by all experience and common sense, as surely "as the day the night." The blatant incorrectness and folly is addressed in other posts. [*7, *22, *31] The one thing that cannot be escaped is money. Governmental monotheistic endorsing references on money, and then with generations of children seeing it by life-necessity, is blatant systemic unfairness to atheisms and polytheisms, and systemically unfair to many more equal diverse people. It is hypocritical systemic American folly. [31] But, let us put that fact aside for this moment, as this post suggests a different implication.
And let us even put aside the corollary that indoctrinating children and everyone else with monotheism on inescapable money can be correlated to zygote gestation turmoil, social chaos, and other social regressions. [31b] Go ahead, put "god in government" in a diverse, free-thinking, and free society and see how that seed gestates. Folly always has consequences. [*6] History repeats itself, except only that America is now the culprit and not the victim. [31c, 32] Yes, let us put all that aside in our diverse, free-thinking, and free society that doth profess too much about equal "justice for all."
The Christian (but not necessarily the other Abrahamic religions of Judaism and Islam) press the three so-called "Christian Virtues" of Charity (Love), Faith and Hope. [*24]
We note that all three of the "Christian Virtues" are emotions, or correlated to emotions; that is, feelings. [33] I am not suggesting here whether those attributes are good or bad, only that they are now socially pervasive and feelings-based. Of course, Nietzsche condemned them as slavish, but irrespectively, they tend to the soft forgiving nurturing nature of humanity. [34, 27]
The sensitive "Christian Virtues" are more the Jesusian "turn the other cheek" than the Jewish "Gird up your loins now, like a man." [35, 36] Moreover, Aesop teaches over and over that secular empirical temporal wisdom must, at times, reject Jesusian morality. [*23, 37]
This "moral" and perhaps slavish teaching has even crept into leadership training from, e.g., John Maxwell, who is superb, generally, but we note that he is a former Christian pastor, [38] indoctrinating with sensitive leadership concepts like "servant leader" and "emotional intelligence." [39] Rather, there is nothing but acquisition of "the virtuous good." Everything else is vice. The "good" is to be acquired as a leader, follower, or all alone, no more, no less. [*39]
The wisdom to save a soul and the wisdom to save a country are not the same thing.
2. The Rise of Modern Psychology to Usurp Essential Traditional Philosophy. The "science" of psychology has been around sort of forever, or at least for so long as humans competed or self-assessed. But, as of recent, what is the first moniker of the clinical psychologist, but "How did it make you feel?" [40] This is the new nurturing, sensitive, and forgiving concept of "feelings are neither right nor wrong, they just are." [41]
With the exponential effect of medical doctors and clinical therapists, with now pervasive mental drugs, and with the new legal industry relying upon so-called "experts," the nature of the narrative tends to be that the knee-jerk reactive "feeling" in a culprit is sensitively excused and forgiven because the "feeling" has external causation.
Lest we miss it, we astutely notice the "it" and the "make" in the "How did it make you feel?" Thusly, the redirection to the external, "it" [*41, 42] and to the causation, "make." [43] So much for old-school, "sticks and stones." [44, *34, *43]
Of course, this does not suggest the proper merits of proper medical care for a proper critical mass of causal conditions, but rather to note that the baseline for the nurturing narrative is tending not to be reserved accordingly, but now for the common condition. Alas, the therapist tends not to say, "Stop eating so much, endure the diet, exercise, quit whining, gird up your loins, and do your job," or perhaps the time-tested advice from sage Seneca, "The tender neck chafes at the yoke." [*36, 45] Easy survival no longer necessitates natural toughness, which nurtures the spiraling civility that will undo itself. [46]
3. The Rise of Women Social Influence and Power. There are brilliant women and brilliant men, and both are entitled by society to an equal place, but general rules regarding tendencies and inclinations cannot be ignored. And it cannot be played both ways in truth. Two different things are not the same thing, and they must be considered accordingly. Whether the law requires it is not the issue. Wisdom requires it. Wisdom does not suffer the law's hypocrisy. It never has, and it never will. [*15]
Therefore, we see three relatively recent natural social tendencies that permeate American society, all of which are inclined to nurturing, and all of which work together to create an exponentially potent "feelings-based" new cultural narrative, for better or worse, such as it is. [17, 18]
Wisdom does not need to be perfect, but it does need to be astute. Nature can be ignored, and Nature can be debated, but Nature will not be denied. Truth is persistent.
[27] The History of the Decline and Fall of the American Hegemony—Chapter 2 Excerpt—National Debt [#GRZ_185]
[29] The History of the Decline and Fall of the American Hegemony—Chapter 7 Excerpt—Wall Street [#GRZ_181]
[30] The History of the Decline and Fall of the American Hegemony—Chapter 6 Excerpt—Responsibility Framework Failure [#GRZ_180]
"Sapientia perfectam esse non habet, sed astutam esse habet." ("Wisdom does not have to be perfect, but it does have to be astute."); "Quae societas effecit, societas curare debet." ("What society has caused, society must cure."); "Veritas perseverans est." "(The truth is persistent."); "Minoritas attributa non creantur aequalia." ("All the minority attributes are not created equal."); "Omne discrimen non aequale creatum est." ("All discrimination is not created equal."); "Civilitas per modum civilitatis destruitur." ("Civility is undone by civility."); "Artificium causatum, curatum artificio." ("Caused by contrivance, cured by contrivance."); "Sapientia nihil servit nisi ipsa." ("Wisdom serves only itself"); "Natura potest dissimulari, Natura disputari, Natura non negari." ("Nature can be ignored, and Nature can be debated, but Nature will not be denied."); "Sapientia non patitur hypocrisin legis." ("Wisdom does not suffer the law's hypocrisy.") ~ grz
* Gregg Zegarelli, Esq., earned both his Bachelor of Arts Degree and his Juris Doctorate from Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. His dual major areas of study were History from the College of Liberal Arts and Accounting from the Business School (qualified to sit for the CPA examination), with dual minors in Philosophy and Political Science. He has enjoyed Adjunct Professorships in the Duquesne University Graduate Leadership Master Degree Program (The Leader as Entrepreneur; Developing Leadership Character Through Adversity) and the University of Pittsburgh Law School (The Anatomy of a Deal). He is admitted to various courts throughout the United States of America.
Gregg Zegarelli, Esq.,?is Managing Shareholder of Technology & Entrepreneurial Ventures Law Group, PC.?Gregg is nationally rated as "superb" and has more than 35 years of experience working with entrepreneurs and companies of all sizes, including startups,?INC. 500, and publicly traded companies.?He is author of One: The Unified Gospel of Jesus, and The Business of Aesop? article series, and co-author with his father, Arnold Zegarelli, of The Essential Aesop: For Business, Managers, Writers and Professional Speakers. Gregg is a frequent lecturer, speaker and faculty for a variety of educational and other institutions.
? 2024 Gregg Zegarelli, Esq. Gregg can be contacted through LinkedIn.
None the statements in this article are reflections or endorsements by any of the many institutions with which the author is affiliated.
#GreggZegarelli #Women #Men #XX #XY #Hermaphrodite #Jefferson #Adams #Wisdom #Religion #JohnMaxwell #Psychology #Sufferage #SocialResponsibility #ChristianVirtues #NobleAttributes #NobleEmotions #SocialJustice #Zegarelli #GRZ_210
Labor News, Advocacy, and Engagement...I was child abducted to here from Eastern Europe :(...
1 个月https://www.dhirubhai.net/posts/ijakabfinn_donate-to-car-repair-for-a-voice-against-activity-7289772980681773056-jrM9?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop