The Term "MAN" should be MANESS
The Androgynous Adam pt1-- How The Term "MAN" Was Deliberately Misappropriated By The Male Of The Species To Promulgate The Myth That Patriarchal Hierarchies Were Ordained By God, And To Use This Myth To Subjugate The Female In Virtually All Societies On Earth.
It's not that I necessarily believe everything I read in The Bible, I know that symbolism played a huge part in it's writing and that this has lead to a lot of conjecture throughout the centuries if not outright war, especially between those who claim to be true believers.
I'm somewhat confused though, that when I do read it, it seems so often to be completely out of kilter with the things I had always presumed to know were actually written there.
These presumptions are based almost exclusively on what was taught me in school, Sunday school and in adult church and Bible study groups too.
It almost feels as if the Church, through it's selective readings and sermons on particular themes has been deliberately hiding the truth - Dur!
For instance take a look at the Adam & Eve story; I would wager that the vast majority of people who claim to have any knowledge or understanding of this story, whether they believe it or not, would presume that the words "Go forth and multiply" were directed toward Adam & Eve together and would be rather shocked to learn that it was in fact a heavenly directive given to the "MAN" alone! That is, before God seperated what had first been created.
Read it with me:
Gen 1:26. Then GOD said let “Us” make a “MAN” in “Our” own image -- and a "MAN" was then created, being exactly the same as God, both male and female.
That is, one single being, with both male and female reproductive sex organs combined together in one body -- The Androgynous Adam if you like -- although God hadn't actually given him, her, it, whatever the damn thing was, a name at that time.
But the fact that God had endowed this "MAN" with the means of self-reproduction is beyond question because as we can see in:
Gen 1:28. God then said to this “MAN”. "Go forth and multiply" -- that is in your present form of self-progenating, dual-sexual, androgenous super-being, made in the very image of the Creator -- which the "MAN" then dutifully went forth and did. Presumably producing a whole race of self-progenating offspring along the way, although there's no further mention of what happened to these people. But it is not until after the “MAN” has gone forth and done this multiplying, that we read in:
Gen 2:18. God said: "It is not right for “MAN” to live alone, let “Us” make a mate meet for “HIS” needs" -- and then (Gen 2:21/22) God put the androgynous “MAN” into a deep sleep and removed the symbolic “rib” (or for the sake of this argument, the female reproductive parts of the androgynous “MAN”) and from these parts created a “wuh-man” (note lower case), ie: The female portion that had been removed from the "MAN".
But what then should the male part that was left over from this "operation" be properly called?
Surely not "MAN" anymore?
Of course not, no, nor even "man"...
For now, with the female parts removed, this male-only being is no longer the complete image of the male and female God that first created it and has no more claim on the title of "MAN" than the female.
Therefore the idea of the male keeping the original name of "MAN" or even reducing it to "man" as opposed to something much closer to the truth -- "man-wuh" for instance, ie: The male bit which was left over, after the female portion was removed -- is duplicitous in the extreme.
It is proof positive of the grand conspiracy perpetrated by the patriarchal societies that evolved from these ancient creation myths, to help keep the poor little inferior sub-species "wuh-man", firmly in their subjugated place.
One doesn't even have to be a believer, to realize how this simple misnomer of semantics has been miss-used(sic) throughout the centuries to justify the dominance of the male over the female.
It should never have been this way. If the correct terminology had been applied from the beginning then the balance of power would not and could not have been so easily purloined by the male.
One does not have to imagine very hard to realize what a difference it would have made to the herstory of "wuh-man-wuh-kind" if the female of the species had been allowed an equal say in the building and progression of civilisation.
An argument might be made too that if the male of the species had been allowed to indulge their more sensitive sides and nurture and enhance their physical beauty instead of their physical strengths then this planet would have had a far more peaceful existence.
Now, taking this argument to it's logical conclusion, if anybody has the true right to call themselves a "MAN", it is surely the cross-dressing, gender-bending, bisexual, transvestite/transexual, M2F/F2M, so-called deviants of society that have a much greater claim on the original title laid upon God's own re-creation of Her/Him-self.
There's a note in Deuteronomy that says God hates the sight of males dressing and/or acting like females and vice-versa too, but what the Hell does She/He expect when our condition all boils down to Her/His original mistake -- "It is WRONG for "MAN" to live alone" said God -- a rare admission of guilt methinks -- and may well have added to Her/Himself "I sure hope nobody notices the total bodge-job I'm going to have to do here to put this cock-up right".
Anyway we all know that the God of the Old Testament is a bit on the jealous side and no doubt the reason She/He doesn't like to watch us glorious trannys putting on the slap is because we always outdo Her/Him in the style wars and of course the poor old thing is getting on a bit now and probably can't hide the wrinkles anymore.
© Pritti Polly 2009
It's not that I necessarily believe everything I read in The Bible, I know that symbolism played a huge part in it's writing and that this has lead to a lot of conjecture throughout the centuries if not outright war, especially between those who claim to be true believers.
I'm somewhat confused though, that when I do read it, it seems so often to be completely out of kilter with the things I had always presumed to know were actually written there.
These presumptions are based almost exclusively on what was taught me in school, Sunday school and in adult church and Bible study groups too.
It almost feels as if the Church, through it's selective readings and sermons on particular themes has been deliberately hiding the truth - Dur!
For instance take a look at the Adam & Eve story; I would wager that the vast majority of people who claim to have any knowledge or understanding of this story, whether they believe it or not, would presume that the words "Go forth and multiply" were directed toward Adam & Eve together and would be rather shocked to learn that it was in fact a heavenly directive given to the "MAN" alone! That is, before God seperated what had first been created.
Read it with me:
Gen 1:26. Then GOD said let “Us” make a “MAN” in “Our” own image -- and a "MAN" was then created, being exactly the same as God, both male and female.
That is, one single being, with both male and female reproductive sex organs combined together in one body -- The Androgynous Adam if you like -- although God hadn't actually given him, her, it, whatever the damn thing was, a name at that time.
But the fact that God had endowed this "MAN" with the means of self-reproduction is beyond question because as we can see in:
Gen 1:28. God then said to this “MAN”. "Go forth and multiply" -- that is in your present form of self-progenating, dual-sexual, androgenous super-being, made in the very image of the Creator -- which the "MAN" then dutifully went forth and did. Presumably producing a whole race of self-progenating offspring along the way, although there's no further mention of what happened to these people. But it is not until after the “MAN” has gone forth and done this multiplying, that we read in:
Gen 2:18. God said: "It is not right for “MAN” to live alone, let “Us” make a mate meet for “HIS” needs" -- and then (Gen 2:21/22) God put the androgynous “MAN” into a deep sleep and removed the symbolic “rib” (or for the sake of this argument, the female reproductive parts of the androgynous “MAN”) and from these parts created a “wuh-man” (note lower case), ie: The female portion that had been removed from the "MAN".
But what then should the male part that was left over from this "operation" be properly called?
Surely not "MAN" anymore?
Of course not, no, nor even "man"...
For now, with the female parts removed, this male-only being is no longer the complete image of the male and female God that first created it and has no more claim on the title of "MAN" than the female.
Therefore the idea of the male keeping the original name of "MAN" or even reducing it to "man" as opposed to something much closer to the truth -- "man-wuh" for instance, ie: The male bit which was left over, after the female portion was removed -- is duplicitous in the extreme.
It is proof positive of the grand conspiracy perpetrated by the patriarchal societies that evolved from these ancient creation myths, to help keep the poor little inferior sub-species "wuh-man", firmly in their subjugated place.
One doesn't even have to be a believer, to realize how this simple misnomer of semantics has been miss-used(sic) throughout the centuries to justify the dominance of the male over the female.
It should never have been this way. If the correct terminology had been applied from the beginning then the balance of power would not and could not have been so easily purloined by the male.
One does not have to imagine very hard to realize what a difference it would have made to the herstory of "wuh-man-wuh-kind" if the female of the species had been allowed an equal say in the building and progression of civilisation.
An argument might be made too that if the male of the species had been allowed to indulge their more sensitive sides and nurture and enhance their physical beauty instead of their physical strengths then this planet would have had a far more peaceful existence.
Now, taking this argument to it's logical conclusion, if anybody has the true right to call themselves a "MAN", it is surely the cross-dressing, gender-bending, bisexual, transvestite/transexual, M2F/F2M, so-called deviants of society that have a much greater claim on the original title laid upon God's own re-creation of Her/Him-self.
There's a note in Deuteronomy that says God hates the sight of males dressing and/or acting like females and vice-versa too, but what the Hell does She/He expect when our condition all boils down to Her/His original mistake -- "It is WRONG for "MAN" to live alone" said God -- a rare admission of guilt methinks -- and may well have added to Her/Himself "I sure hope nobody notices the total bodge-job I'm going to have to do here to put this cock-up right".
Anyway we all know that the God of the Old Testament is a bit on the jealous side and no doubt the reason She/He doesn't like to watch us glorious trannys putting on the slap is because we always outdo Her/Him in the style wars and of course the poor old thing is getting on a bit now and probably can't hide the wrinkles anymore.
© Pritti Polly 2009
11 年 前