Transvestism takes 1st class women and turns them into 5th rate men and takes 2nd class men and turns them into 3rd rate women. Yes, I too noticed that the math does not add up. Why? Women are less adept at pulling off manhood than men are at pulling off femininity.
What? Is this just another version of the "men are better at everything" shtick? No. Men are not better at everything. Women are actually better than men... at being women. They are made for it and achieve it better than men do. Which is why men cannot become 1st class women. So why the differentiation on the opening math? Why does a 1st class woman only make a 5th rate man whereas a 2nd rate man can make a 3rd rate woman?
Well, first off, being 5th rate or 3rd rate is functionally equivalent. They're both functional failures. That is the point. But I did provoke the point by punctuating it by my math. So, I concede your point in pointing that out. The bottom line is that it is more difficult to fake strength than it is to fake beauty. Many a forger can fake a great piece of art, but no amount of forgery can create flex where there isn't any. Show muscles look good but are good for nothing muscular. Yet even show muscles are more easily achieved by men than by women. That sort of cuts to the core of it though, right? Show muscles can be achieved by women, just not as easily or ubiquitously. But strength is not just in the observation of muscle, but in the application of strength. Men who look like they could lift a house rarely can, whereas men who look like a house can often lift whatever they want.
But I digress. Man was made from the ground for the ground. He was made to be strong and to apply that strength to his work. Woman was made from man for the man. She was given strengths corresponding to her task of tending to the one who tends the ground. Thus, her skills are soft skills like comfort, listening, nutrition, patience, healing, beautifying, etc... And his skills are hard skills like lifting, digging, pushing, shoving, moving, imposing, straining, etc...
So if this is the case, why are men better at pretending to be women than women are at pretending to be men? Because it is easier to look like a woman than it is to be a man. When men aim at femininity, they aim at the exterior aesthetic. When women aim at masculinity, they aim at its essence. They don't want to just look like men, they want to be men. But looking like something is more easily pulled off than being something else entirely.
So it isn't the case that being a woman is easier than being a man, but rather that looking like a woman is easier than being a man. It is so hard, in fact, that even many men don't pull it off. They remain lifelong Peter Pans. Boys, but not men.
When a man attempts to adorn himself as the glory of man, he almost always, without exception aims at natural, obvious, creational femininity: long hair, soft edges, long eyelashes, make up, low cut blouses and high-heeled shoes, etc... All of these attempts to fake being feminine only highlight my point that God has revealed what gender distinctives belong where. A cross-dressing man does not adapt a lumberjack lesbian persona because no one in that scenario would know he was cross dressing and that's sort of the point, right?
So when a woman attempts to cross dress as a man, she aims high as well. She aims for a man, but being a man is more than just a uniform, it is meeting the requirements of wearing the uniform. You can't fake strength. God has created distinctions and right out of the gate in Genesis 1, that is what we see. God and not God. Light and not light. Water and not water. Male and not male. These are equal in value and dignity and the standards over them are equal. So a man is distinct as a woman, but is held to the same standards of conduct. The world gets this, not surprisingly, exactly backwards. They erase the distinctions on the front end saying there is no difference between men and women as a justification for forcing young ladies to dawn military garb, but once in, they are not held to the same standards as their male counterparts. Their weakness is accommodated for as though there was real weakness present on the back end after completely ignoring said weakness on the front end in abolishing the differences of maleness and femaleness. So you end up with female firefighters who can't fight fires and the effeminatti applauding and congratulating themselves for their high achievement. They got her through the same front door by ushering her through the process using different house rules. Like I said, ass backwards. God would have them use a different door altogether, ya know the one with the figure wearing a long dress. And if for some reason they walked through the wrong door, the one with the arms and legs sans dress, they would be held to the standard clearly marked on that door.
Now it should be noted that no man can successfully pull off beauty the way a woman can. This was stated clearly in the opening math equation. Men make 3rd rate women, at best. But they come closer to capturing beauty than women do at capturing strength. Man is made from dust and woman was made from man. Woman thus returns to dust when she dies since she is made from man who is made from dust. But man is the glory of God and woman is the glory of man. Man has something in common with God that woman does not. Woman is out of man, man is out of dust directly. Thus the leap from dust to man is a greater initial leap than from man to woman. Again, this is not a statement of value, but of order. God made man something that He did not make woman. He made mankind to be represented by the man. Woman can be arranged under the heading of man, whereas man cannot be arranged under the head of woman although from here until eternity he is forever connected to the uterus of the woman. So if man is the glory of God and woman the glory of man, it makes sense that women would have a more difficult time copying the glory of God than man would copying the glory of man. This isn't a degradation of the glory of man, but rather a statement about the magnificence of the glory of God. Men are better at applying themselves to the glory they were created to embody and the same goes for women. No one is better at being a man, than a man. No one is better at being a woman, than a women.
No comments:
Post a Comment