So I've finally managed to find some time and space to read through this fully and it's given me lots to think on a perhaps even revealed some truths about myself. In many ways I think I am torn between the feminine which is who I am and feel comfortable with, if only I were allowed to truly embrace it, and the masculine which is what I have to rise up to be to protect myself and those I care for. My thinking is more logical, but it can sometimes try to deny my intuition, with the belief that they must clash. It's taken me years to accept that they can coexist. Perhaps that is down to the imbalanced world we are currently living in.
I feel I want to add something to what you mentioned on the constitution using men. The word man at one time had no gender connotations, any more than the word bear does. I recall reading description of woman being a word to describe a female human. Man was literally just a word to describe our species. That said, I am also aware that at the time the constitution was drawn up people were not certainly not considered equal. So the word man would most likely have referred to the aristocracy or landowners, who would all be equal among themselves. Perhaps this is where that divide came subconsciously, in the knowledge that women were not counted among those men, so men became the only ones able to take that species title?
It also reminds me of the Manga Carta that so many believe gives us rights. It was never meant to give rights to the commoners, only to the aristocracy who created it and demanded the king sign it. Which he duly did, then proceeded to ignore. Any documents to give us equality in the past were never meant for the cattle that we are and I'm seeing this being made clear again in recent years as we foolishly believed we were included in those documents.
Unfortunately, often the women we've had in powerful positions end up following in the footsteps of the males around them. Margaret Thatcher started out well and made some huge strides, initially. However, by the time she was ousted it seems that the power had taken her to the same place as many men in that position. Power should probably never be more than temporary.
I'm grateful you took the time to read my article fully, and I'm happy if it managed to spark some truths for you. Each of us is meant to find a comfortable balance of masculine and feminine for ourselves, and sometimes this can take courage. Someone might want to be a hyper-feminine 'girly girl', but be scared of judgment. Or another might want to be a hard-nosed political warrior, but be scared of judgment. Someone might want to be a non-binary, ambivalent, neutral-type, but be scared of judgment. Ultimately, people have the choice to be what they want, proclaiming it with self-love 'loud and proud', or to shrink back in fear, relegating themselves completely out of their desired balance.
Interesting addition about the constitution! Great point! And in ancient times I imagine 'man' was just short-form for human being, but there were clear gender differences and castes implied by 'man' and 'woman' from medieval witch-burning ages and centuries after. By the time the constitution was written, they most certainly were aware of this and could have used 'human', 'citizen', 'person', 'people' etc. In fact I believe they did use "We the people", but the switched to 'man' during the equality statement, specifically to exclude 'slaves', 'women', and 'children', whom they did NOT consider equal. But even if I'm wrong, whatever the case, it's 2021, and that language in such an 'important' document could most definitely be updated.
But like you said, just like the Magna Carta and other political documents... those documents are often made with strange motivations and agendas, and they're the 'letter' of the law not the 'spirit' of it, and they often go ignored when it suits a king or whoever.
As for power, I believe I've said all I can say on the subject here and here, lol.
As always, thank you for your wonderful, well-thought out contributions to the discussion, I value and appreciate you. #KeepRyzing 🙏
The thing about words when it comes to common law in the US, UK and British commonwealth (where common law is still acknowledged), is that they still have those original meanings. So a woman in court needing to express herself as someone free would address herself as a man. To address herself as a woman denotes her as belonging to a man, thus having no rights. I believe therein lies the trick with the word man as it's being used in the constitution. If you want to play their game, then you use their words and apply them as needed. They aren't interested in you getting offended at having to call yourself a man. People is the collective word, so you can't call yourself that, then person refers more to the 'paper' self, so a company can also be a person. An entity on paper has no rights in law, only in the legal system, where the rules can be changed at their leisure.
Still, it's all a separation of us and them. As you say, the letter of the law and not the spirit.
Thanks for the added clarity here! And you're right, the law does have an interesting approach to language, but ultimately " letter of the law and not the spirit" is the most vital issue from which others spring.
I could write another 10,000 words on language-reflecting-thought, evolving meanings, and the power of labels, but at least I touched on it here: Why No One Reads What You Write: A Masterclass In Communication (linking it in case anyone is following our discussion and wants to dig deeper.)
As always, thanks for a great chat! 🙏