EXTRAORDINARY AH Teaching from Spiritual Hierarchy
  NEW READERS! Read Here First
  Supporting AH
  Leadership of AbundantHope
  Regional AH Sites
  Other Sites with AH material
  Contact Us
  Becoming A Messiah
  Mission Ideas
  System Busting
  Cleric Letter/English
  Translations of Cleric Letter
  AH Member Writings
  Brian's Poetry
  Telepathic Messages
  Jess Anthony
  Lucia G
  Targeted Messages
  Light Flower
  Changing The Face Of Religion
  - Phoenix Journals - PDF in German
  Candace on Religion
  Other Spiritual Pieces
  Spiritual Nuggets by the Masters
  Phoenix Journals
  Phoenix Journals - PDF
  Telepathic Messages PDF books
  Selections from the Urantia Book
  Illustrations For The Urantia Book
  CMGSN Pieces
  David Crayford and the ITC
  Health and Nutrition
  Podcasts, Radio Shows, Video by AH
  Political Information
  True US History
  Human/Animal Rights
  The Miracle That Is Me
  911 Material
  Books - eBooks
  government email/phone #'s
  Self Reliance
  Alternative News Sources
  Art and Music
  Foreign Sites
  Health and Healing
  Human/Animal Rights
  Vegan Recipes
  Translated Material
  Gekanaliseerde berichten Jess
  Gekanaliseerde berichten Candace
  Gekanaliseerde berichten Anderen
  Canal Jess
  Par Candace
  Other Channels
  Telepathische Nachrichten (Candace)
  Telepathische Nachrichten (Jess)
  Telepathische Nachrichten (div.)
  AH Mitgliederbeiträge (Candace)
  AH Mitgliederbeiträge (Jess)
  Spirituelle Schätze
  Translations - Candace
  Translations - Jess
  Translations - Others
  by Candace
  By Jess
  By Others
  Anfitriones Divinos
  Bitácoras Fénix
  Creadores-de-Alas (WingMakers/Lyricus)
  Escritos de Candace
  Escritos de Otros
  Telemensajes de Candace
  Telemensajes de Jess Anthony
  Telemensajes de Otros
  By Candace
  By Jess
  By Others
  Korean Translations
  Hungarian Translations
  Swedish Translations

[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Political Information Last Updated: Jun 18, 2019 - 9:09:48 PM

You Will be Absorbed: British Thought Police Ban Ads With “Gender Stereotypes”
By Selwyn Duke
Jun 18, 2019 - 9:07:06 PM

Email this article
 Printer friendly page Share/Bookmark

You Will be Absorbed: British Thought Police Ban Ads With

Your betters are at it again. This time it's the philosopher kings who think boys can be girls striking a blow against supposedly "harmful" sex stereotypes by banning them in advertisements. Of course, many have asked who will judge what's harmful, but a more fundamental question is ignored: Are so-called sex stereotypes really bad?

As the Japan Times reports:

Hapless husbands and housework-burdened moms are being banished from British advertising as a crackdown on "harmful" gender stereotypes came into force Friday.

Under new rules, advertisements must not include gender stereotypes that are likely to cause harm or serious or widespread offense.

Examples include depictions of a man failing to change a diaper or a woman to park a car, or ads that suggest women are solely responsible for cooking and cleaning.

Complaints will be assessed by industry watchdog the Advertising Standards Authority. It doesn't have the power to impose fines, but British broadcasters are bound by the terms of their licenses to comply with its rulings.

Providing further detail, the AFP writes, "‘Harmful gender stereotypes in ads can contribute to inequality in society, with costs for all of us,' ASA chief executive Guy Parker said in a statement."

Nonsense. "Inequality," per se, doesn't cost society, a good thing since there's no such thing as equality in society. What does have consequences is a lack of quality, as I've explained before. And as elusive equality is emphasized, quality is de-emphasized.

Imparting more wisdom, Parker also stated, "Put simply, we found that some portrayals in ads can, over time, play a part in limiting people's potential," the AFP also relates.

This is an interesting concept. Is it possible that "sex stereotyping" ("gender" is the wrong term) is sometimes actually positive sex-specific training that doesn't limit potential, but guides it? Let's examine the matter.

Social engineers often warn today about putting children in a "gender straitjacket" (again, misusing the term); they say we mustn't impose values on kids but let them beat their own path. But consider: Would we likewise warn against placing kids in a species straitjacket? Before answering, know that just as the psychobabblers define "gender dysphoria" - the strong sense you were born in the body of the wrong sex - they also speak of "species dysphoria," the strong sense you're an animal stuck in a human body. (Note: A Texan going by the name "Wolfie Blackheart" claimed she was a canine and a Norwegian woman calling herself Nano swore she was a cat.)

But does this mean we shouldn't put children in clothes, have them eat with utensils, and teach them language, manners, and everything else befitting a human because they may later identify as a ferret?

What if, just as we raise a boy in a species-specific way because he's not an animal, we should also raise him in a sex-specific way because he's not a girl?

After all, if a child has a gift for music, do we treat him exactly the same as a kid gifted in golf? Are we constrained by "equality" dogma? Or do we offer one music-specific training and the other golf-specific training?

Likewise, is "sex stereotyping" really a negative force? Or is it just a matter of recognizing boys' and girls' characteristic gifts and giving them sex-specific training allowing them to develop those qualities fully?

Note, too, that a person's "potential" can be realized and exercised in different ways, and this brings us to what's harmful to women (which is what this is really about). Just as a given man's potential for great dynamism and bravery could result in his becoming a vicious criminal or a virtuous law-enforcement officer, a given woman's great mind could be directed toward teaching other people's kids in college or teaching her own at home. Which is the better choice?

At the societal level, first consider that fertility rates are below replacement level in virtually every Western country and the better part of 100 nations worldwide. Female careerism is implicated in this, as women focused on job success delay having children and sometimes bear none at all. Of course, this may please the misanthropes and Muslim supremacists ("We'll outbreed Westerners in their own lands"), but it doesn't perpetuate civilization.

On a personal level, are women really happier ending up spinsters surrounded by cats (so to speak)? For that matter, is childlessness a meaningful course for most men?

As for women, there is, today, this notion that being a housewife is somehow small, trivial, and an inferior status to that of careerist. But G.K. Chesterton refuted this idea beautifully in his 1910 book What's Wrong With the World, writing:

Babies need not to be taught a trade, but to be introduced to a world. To put the matter shortly, woman is generally shut up in a house with a human being at the time when he asks all the questions that there are, and some that there aren't. It would be odd if she retained any of the narrowness of a specialist.

... To be Queen Elizabeth within a definite area, deciding sales, banquets, labors and holidays; to be [William] Whiteley within a certain area, providing toys, boots, sheets, cakes, and books, to be Aristotle within a certain area, teaching morals, manners, theology, and hygiene; I can understand how this might exhaust the mind, but I cannot imagine how it could narrow it. How can it be a large career to tell other people's children about the Rule of Three, and a small career to tell one's own children about the universe? How can it be broad to be the same thing to everyone, and narrow to be everything to someone? No; a woman's function is laborious, but because it is gigantic, not because it is minute.

Tragically, though, the social engineers would make it minute today, imposing their careerist values on little girls. This phenomenon also reflects our time's materialism, the perspective of those who know "the price of everything, and the value of nothing," to quote an Oscar Wilde character. We're supposed to believe you're better off being a cog in the economic machinery and making money than being a creator of men and making civilization's tomorrow.

It's a strange conception, indeed, of saving people from harm.

Photo: ablokhin/iStock/Getty Images Plus

All writings by members of AbundantHope are copyrighted by
©2005-2019 AbundantHope - All rights reserved

Detailed explanation of AbundantHope's Copyrights are found here

Top of Page

Political Information
Latest Headlines
Neoliberalism Has Met Its Match in China
Why Has This Crazy Tribe been Kicked Out of Every Country on Earth?
18 Facts on the US National Debt That Are Almost Too Hard to Believe
Locked Up: How the Modern Prison-Industrial Complex Puts So Many Americans in Jail
14,000 Words Of "Blame The Pilots" That Whitewash Boeing Of 737 MAX Failure
This Conservative Professor Just Rolled Out A New Class That Will Blow Liberals' Minds
Facebook Will Bankroll an ‘independent supreme court’ to moderate Your Content & Set Censorship Precedents
How The New York Times Finally Killed Its Reputation With Fake Kavanaugh Story
The Magnitskiy Myth Exploded
“Deep State” Destruction Test Run Begins After Largest US Bank Hit With Criminal Enterprise Indictment
Australian Former Prime Minister: Abortion Bill will bring ‘infanticide on demand’
Farage: The EU Is ‘Building an Empire. Why Deny It ?
Data: At Least Quarter of a Million DACA Anchor Babies Living in 37 States
From Parts Unknown to Streets Paved with Gold
Our Invisible Government
How Russian And Iran Beat Their Opponents' Strategies
Israel Spies and Spies and Spies
President Macron's Amazing Admission
Leftist Dark Money Group Behind Supposed Grassroots ‘Impeach Kavanaugh’ Movement
Law, Justice, and God: An Awkward Fit