Friday, 4 October 2019

Gender as a marker of changes

Andrew Stepanenko
June 11, 2019 <>

Translated by Berenkova Violetta Michailovna

The first source is biological. If you have read the chapter “Submission Ritual”, this pair of short paragraphs will be enough. The gene of paederasty does not exist, but there is the excessive sexuality, which is inherent in primacies, closely connected with the public status and a power struggle. The higher status the person has, the better personal sexual choice he/she has. The lower status the person has, the more imposed roles he/she has, including sexual.
As a result, even nowadays some tribes keep male tribesmen in submission through ritual copulation or its imitation. Right now, there are tribes where each child passes through it, and power change is accompanied with destruction or lowering in the status (with the same method) of all prepotent men.
The second source is demographic. In chronically starving communities some part of girls are killed, in chronically satiated communities some part of guys are isolated from women, and in both cases there is a disbalance between genders. The result is known: the forced unisex sex. At late stages when demography was already regulated by means of monasteries, such relations found force in the customs. The best example: mixed up on unisex sex homage in The Order of Knights Templars.
Today unisex relations is a socially significant phenomenon only in hierarchical, compulsorily isolated unisex communities. Prisons, the USA fleet, monasteries - all these communities are unisex and closed, and, as consequence, are internally force-based organizations. The nature regards absence of sex with an opposite sex as an important argument for aggressive behavior, selecting a way to unwind.
LGBT outside of the barbed wire or the isolated African tribe is, from my point of view, an unresolved acute psychological problem of a person, or refusal from the struggle for the opposite sex, or being stuck in a condition of struggle against his/her own gender. Actives and passives find each other not because they prefer their own gender, but because both groups have psychologically not developed to have relationship with the opposite sex. It is, actually, a certain display of infantilism. The extreme manifestation of this problem is fetishism when the person does not dare to have sexual relationship at all.

Our history is really need of scientific estimation of paederasty as a norm of a monastic and army way of life and as an integral part of the tribal (feudal) type power arrangement. By the way, ethnographers have already had this estimation for a long time.

Before the secularization act (which was the third of property in Europe) it was impossible to punish monasteries for paederasty. There were two reasons: 1) it was impossible to punish the third of population, 2) homage (which was always only unisex in the monastic communities) before the act of freedom giving was a legal rule.
Secularization flooded the world with former monastic workers of both sexes, and there were no for them any other way to survive than to rent or redeem a piece of the former monastic lands. Financial capital understood it, and it was expected that men and women would move an ordinary way of marriages and family making.
However, there were a number of negative circumstances:
1). Those men and women remembered also series of hungry years, and acts of cannibalism – in the outer world, behind the walls, and that they survived, first of all, just because they didn’t need to feed children;
2). Those men and women got used to unisex relation during 20-30 years of life in monasteries - with all its displays;
3). Those men and women had their own leaders and the government structures for keeping of the internal order, realizing perfectly well that in case of marriages, their power would fall down;
I believe, just at this moment there appeared communities of skoptsi and other sects who tractated the Writing in a habitual way due to the years of monastery life: the sin is a way to the hell, and it is better to remain unmarried. The power which created this thesis in days of hunger and made that third of population get into monasteries and gave them a chance to survive at least, finally had to face its own creation.
Here - not earlier and not later – the struggle against unisex relations begun, first of all, with male ones. Monks had to be made husbands.
The problem was enormously great. The term “secularization” is usual slightly mentioned, without any details, and that fact that the world was flooded with the people (they constituted the third part of total population in Europe) thrown out unready for social life, is usually kept silent. There is also no scientific evidence that these people were brought up in the unisex world. Here again is the case when scabrousness is inappropriate. Secularization was not the church tragedy; it was a tragedy of universal character. Moreover, it is necessary to understand: the government (and civilization) had no other way out of the situation, except to force to refusal from unisex relations at that time.
In Russia (under the influence of the German laws), Poland and Britain the real struggle against homosexuality started in 1835. In my opinion, it is the earliest date from all possible ones: such legal acts could be introduced later, but never earlier. In Europe the antithesis to this date were France and Holland where the unisex relationship was permitted long time ago without any connection with economy, but personally I do not believe these evidences.

The real necessity for punishments for “not standard” sexual orientation disappeared, maximum, by 1932 when the basic land payments came to the end. However the nervous relation to LGBT will always remain. The reason: biologically, from the level of primacies, LGBT it is a signal of the gender disbalance or the period of power change among large males. Both of them are the strongest irritating factor.

It is a general picture. There are1757 evidences about 24 versions of gender relations. Until 1500 these are mostly homosexual facts: like stories about Alexander the Great who loved his gay friends, etc., but the political and economic analysis is absent, just bélles-léttres stories.

Only in 1768 we see a true development: the first attempt to suppress polygamists. The official data specify that gender relations come into the crisis (change of the matrilineal inheritance to the patrilineal one) mainly in the interval 1834-1917 and a year before.

And here we see certain important details: married women start to get the rights in the external, in relation to her family, world of men. We will discuss these rights more detailed later, and now just note: the period 1834-1883 is the period of the basic changes.

Here is the list of these rights in the order they appeared (all this information is found out by feminists, - thanks them a lot, - therefore, the data are mostly from the USA).
Red: Married women got the right to possess their property on their own behalf (but not to manage it)
Dark blue: Married women got the right to possess and dispose their property on their own behalf in case the spouse was disabled
Yellow: Married women were granted with their separate economy
Black: Married women got the control over their earnings
Blue: Married women got trading licenses
Green: Married women got legal majority

At first here is a general deal. The female power pyramid managed the internal policy of communities, and the contacts outside (usually trading and military) were men’s duties. After some series of hunger the value of external contacts greatly increased, - it was required to take loans, for example, with sowing material. When time of loan payments (and a bit later – of the debts redemption) came, quite naturally only men were the people (in the legal sense) who visited city courts and municipalities.

To be exact, not men as representatives of the female gender were personalities in the eyes of the law, but the communities of men like: guilds, shops, orders and, in particular, mentioned in the Byzantine history fractions of land aristocrats. Therefore, it is impossible to say that certain rights were taken away from women; female had no rights in trading-financial communities as this sphere initially belonged to men. The reason: traditional sexual segregation of the tribal (later feudal) way of life: female duties were tabooed for men and vice versa.

However, the woman was an individual on her lands, and of the USA courts just confirmed the right of the woman to own their property on their own behalf. Historians regularly remind that up to the middle of 19 century and even later almost all immovable property officially belonged to women. It was a natural relict of the patrimonial way of life. However, besides, the external world laws dealt with one person – a man.

In 1718-1881 (mainly in 1835-1852) married women got the right to own and dispose their property on their own behalf in case the spouse was disabled.

The person can be limited in active capacity if his/her actions put his/her family in a heavy financial position, but the main thing, active capacity of an organization or a citizen is limited during insolvency proceedings.
It is very likely that the USA endured a series of great bankruptcies, and there was a situation when the man could not make legal acts on his own behalf. Still someone had to manage the manor, so the signature authorization was transferred to lawful proprietresses of manors - to women.

Married women were granted with their separate economy
Married women got the control over their earnings
Married women got trading licenses

They are derivative of the previous point. They chronologically appeared in the same period. It is clear, if the woman signed papers about crop sale, she also had to possess the license for the trade right, the separate from her bankrupt husband budget, and the control over the incomes. Women entered the world of civil laws not because someone felt pity of them, or they achieved something, but it happened because of the financial system collapse and the need of this system in new pouring of assets. Here is the trouble - these real assets were in the ownership of women at that time.

Married women got legal majority. It means that wives come out of guardianship of their husband and become individuals in the eyes of the law. Financial capital understood that money from female hands worked by the same rules, as money from men's hands.
Only now it was possible to put a question concerning the right to divorce, the right to education (and need in it), the right to get a profession and even the right to ballot. If there were liquid assets, so the rights appeared. Besides, the source of changes was not pity, not struggle, but the requirement of the financial capital for the assets to move.

This group of changes began in 1848, and this date seems to me correct.

The historical background is greatly distorted – by all parties. LGBT is neither illness nor a norm; it is a signal about trouble in the society, closely connected with violence, power struggle and possibility to support a family. To prohibit LGBT is the same as to prohibit divorces; it is a way to mental trouble in the society. To encourage LGBT is the same as to encourage divorces - with the same great negative consequences.

The main thing that has cleared up, is the connection of secularization, flooding of the world with people with unisex orientation and great need of economy in returning these people in the world of bisexual relations (even when some part of communities, referring to the embedded in them understanding of the Writing, continued their line of family refusal).

For donors: Pay Pal:

24. Chronological shifts: Catherine's shift and 59-year-old one.
25. The Roman numeration - a key to the chronology secret.
27. Lacuna
28. Lacuna

No comments:

Post a Comment