“Menstruation is caused by change in hormonal levels to stop the creation of a uterine lining and encourage the body to flush the lining out. The body does this by lowering estrogen levels and raising testosterone.
Or, to put it more plainly “That time of the month” is when female hormones most closely resemble male hormones. So if women aren’t suited to office at “That time of the month” then men are NEVER suited to office.
If you are a dude and don’t dig the ladies around you at their time of the month, just think! That is you all of the time.
And, on a final note, post-menopausal women are the most hormonally stable of all human demographics. They have fewer hormonal fluctuations of anyone, meaning older women like Hilary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren would theoretically be among the least likely candidates to make an irrational decision due to hormonal fluctuations, and if we were basing our leadership decisions on hormone levels, then only women over fifty should ever be allowed to hold office.”
My title is slightly tongue in cheek. While I do intend to show that genderism portrays men as absolutely incapable of leadership, my main objective here is to present the genderist framework in general and try to figure out how it works.
Now, I don’t want to suggest that genderism is always the same everywhere. Gender changes depending on the time and place, so we can’t expect genderism to stay the same either.
It is also expressed in completely different social institutions. One extreme example is the Guayaki people of South America, as described by Pierre Clastres in Society Against the State, who hold that men and women exist in two completely separate spheres which must never touch, under the threat of dire social repercussions. The concept of gender domains is not only conceptual but absolutely literal: men and women are not even allowed to touch the tools of each…
View original post 1,628 more words