THE RECITORIAL SOCIETY
Female Entrepreneurship
One of the rallying themes of early feminism called for removing women from the environment they referred to as drudgery, which consisted of cooking, baking, sewing, cleaning, and communications limited to references of the accomplishments of their husbands and children, their own self-adornment, and all socially constructed stereotypical activities of women. Now that women freed from pressure to engage in stereotypical homemaking activities have bloomed entrepreneurially, let’s have a look at the fields in which they have excelled.
The top American business women who do not have inherited wealth are Debbie Fields of Mrs. Fields Cookies – baking, Mary Kay Ash of Mary Kay Cosmetics – self-adornment, Martha Stewart of Martha Stewart Living – cooking, Oprah Winfrey of Harpo Productions – talking, and Sara Blakely of Spanx–sewing. Also, a recent issue of Crain’s welcomed successful women entrepreneurial firms such as Moda – quilting fabrics, Birchbox – grooming products, and Bauble – women’s jewelry. These women earned their wealth from their talents in cooking, baking sewing, talking, and self-adornment; the same activities that feminists railed against 60 years ago
Where are the female engineering and science majors that are the equivalents of Bill Gates of Microsoft, Steve Jobs of Apple Computers, and Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, none of whom graduated from college? Inventiveness does not require a college education or recitations. New comes from conceptual thinking, a non-recitorial male characteristic. How can anything new possibly come from non-conceptual thinking? In my first book Dear Brothers and Sisters: Gender and Its Responsibility in the chapter titled It’s New, I pointed out that new comes from the creative will of the masculine gender.
Not only do all new conceptual developments come from men, but all of the above mentioned women’s businesses depend upon the products that men developed.
These women entrepreneurs cooked, sewed, and produced female grooming products utilizing sewing machines, cutters, grommeters, computers, mixers, blenders, juicers, microwaves, freezers, laboratory equipment and petrochemicals designed and developed by men. They advertised and promoted their products on television and the internet in front of cameras, sound systems, lighting, and a host of communications products invented and developed by men.
On the other hand, Gates, Jobs, and Zuckerberg did not use anything invented and pioneered by women to develop their own products.
All women executives up to the level of CEOs function in an environment that had already been created for them. They have not created anything new.
While writing this essay I checked the internet and came across a brief story about a professional woman gambler who could hold her own with men gamblers. The female news commentator stated that her performance served as another example of women capable of doing anything that men can do. This essay should have already illustrated her statement to be one of recitorial gross ignorance. A more correct statement is “women can only do what men have first done and taught them to do.”
Men provide the means and environment for everything that a woman does. That is the nature of the universe and the symbolic meaning of Eve coming from Adam’s rib. Everything that exists comes from the masculine principle. There is no place else for anything to come from.
In A Gender Handbook for Western Man, I explained that all accomplishment requires an assertive influence acting upon a receptive entity. Two assertive influences or two receptive entities cannot accomplish anything.
We have discovered another chink in the armor of recitorial thinking—its inability to create new.
The coeducation of our children and young adults requires teaching geared to the recitorial level, inasmuch as women cannot learn at the conceptual level. If both men and women are receptive and recitorial, where will all knowledge come from?
We have reduced men and women to work digits to be ruled and directed from sources outside of themselves. The seeds for our destruction have been sown and are germinating.
The equalization of gender by law and the destruction of the family have removed people from a source of knowledge and experience accumulated over generations or even centuries, and have reduced them to automaton workers devoid of any information except what they have been trained to recite in school, on the job, or through the media.
The psyche of Western thought being female is materially oriented; therefore, the conceptual thinking of the male is limited to material inventiveness, which he has excelled in to an unprecedented degree. However, as gender differences become more subdued the natural drive and conceptual thinking of the male also becomes subdued resulting in a decrease in inventiveness. The Soviet Union failed economically because it legislated away the source of new, which the Western world has subsequently done, resulting in a drop in the inventiveness of the last 50 years to a fraction of what it was during the first half of the 20th century. Most of what we call new today consists of adaptations and modifications to existing products. The economy, an object of worship in the Western world, is rapidly grinding to a halt, and no amount of stimulus can save it, because the modern economy depends upon the new; and the source of new—the creative will of the masculine gender—has been suppressed.
Regarding the acclaim given to those women entrepreneurs mentioned earlier, my mother could bake cookies better than Debbie Fields, aunts on both sides of my family could cook as well as Martha Stewart, and most of the women I knew in my childhood could make their own dresses. Those women used their God-given talents for the betterment of the race through service to the family. Today we herald those few women who made a lot of money for themselves, the rest have been lured out of the homes, stripped of the ability to provide nurturing family functions, given recitorial training that will eventually become obsolete, reducing them to lonely unhealthy women dependent upon the government for their survival.
If we are to survive we must walk away from the materialistic recitorial society, and re-establish the family as the focus of a spiritually based and gender oriented society.
E.G.
