ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Education and Science»
  • Sociology & Anthropology

The Soul Selects Her Own Society: Thoughts on the Cause and Rise of Unnecessary Hysterectomies

Updated on December 11, 2014

“Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.”

-W.B. Yeats

When we lose all conviction, it is usually due to the fact we were not conscious of what we lacked in the first place. In good times we take things for granted, while in bad we look for others to blame. If we have the courage to look at ourselves, though, we may see what we lack in varying degree, either dimly or with a frank honesty, and it usually steers our lives in a new direction.

For most of us in this country our convictions as individuals come from traditions and values taught us that, if we are honest to our psychology, are more ingrained in us than we care to admit or think about. And we know too that only as individuals do we become truly acquainted with the limitations of our deepest values, mostly in solitude, and frequently in our sexual lives when as adults we have experiences that challenge or conflict with our inherited values. However, when our values lack conviction, as when they are compromised to appease a collective ideal, and where the individual loses his or her own freedom to choose in between the nexus of his traditional value and a value that makes him or her unique and apart from the rest, it follows almost by necessity that a certain group is singled out and socially engineered to fail at the endeavor only to become a target of discrimination by the collective whole.

Currently then, it is no surprise that the “pretty and/or sensually-appearing woman” is being discriminated against with a collective fervency not seen until this modern day, and though it may seem odd to the Reader at this point that I am connecting the discrimination of “pretty" women with the decline of political and moral “conviction,” it is perhaps due to the failed media coverage surrounding it and the failure to make facts available for a public that the Reader finds it odd at all.

Is it a mere coincidence that never before in the history of America have there been more unnecessary hysterectomies and more contempt for the feminine and/or pretty woman in medicine? Does this fact correlate with the increased profits for physicians who perform the procedure, or is it that more female doctors are performing the procedure, or is it all being done to qualify the Progressive Theological view that the only value in living is the acquisition of a “thing” possessed, and if that “thing” be the cause of rivaled passions, it be better it should remain out of reach or be destroyed altogether? Are all these elements contingent on the other? No matter what your opinion, all of it is really about lack of, or forgotten, convictions.

It is no strange paradox then that while attempting to bring light upon gender inequalities, the Progressive Theology succeeds in the opposite of their intentions, by inducting those with weak convictions into the belief that their whole strata of existence is determined solely by societal influences and that one’s life must be controlled by a supreme but man-made authority.

Not only in science and medicine but in offices too, attractive women are discriminated more in both hiring and on the job. And race has nothing to do with it. A pretty African-American, Asian or Hispanic woman is just as discriminated against as a pretty white woman. Even an article written by The New York Times, entitled “Dressed To Distract” (June 6, 2010), written by Maureen Dowd, its author, places blame on a pretty woman who sued Citigroup for discrimination for the fact “It’s hard to feel sorry for a woman who frets about being too beautiful.”

And the article goes on to cite various “studies” with broad and sweeping comments like

”Ordinarily in life, extraordinary good looks are an advantage for men and women – and even babies. Not only do babies gaze longer at more comely adult faces, research tells us, but parents may gaze longer at more comely babies,”

leaving one to ponder whether it is in fact women in general – or just some women alone – who are perpetuating these lies.

At least to me, when I am walking in the park with my good friend – an elderly man and accomplished writer (I might add) – babies are glued to his lined face and white eyebrows, as they might I would imagine a face with “colors” or bright lipstick (I wear neither). [And I am sure you could find a majority of people gazing longer at an ugly, well-dressed guy with a fancy car, rather than a handsome guy driving a lemon (but not me).]

The point is that a collective theology, no matter who wears it, is notorious for placing a happiness value in the whole of life by comparing oneself to what others have, which is why all of the change they seek brings down the surface of things (like "pretty" or "handsome" faces [the medical exploitation of men is also being done but must be another hub altogether]) and is truly, from a psychological view, being done to appease envy. The rise of hysterectomies is testimony to the truth of this view. Does the new collective theology honestly believe they are extinguishing sexual proclivities by annihilating desires, or are they truly only succeeding at heightening temptations and increasing perversions, like crimes against children? I don’t know what you, the Reader, think but as far as I can see we are definitely becoming a culture of people that cannot handle our own sexual emotions, and the rise of unnecessary hysterectomies, to me, is evidence of this. Annihilating or emasculating the "pretty" woman, therefore, only contributes to a greater handicap and greater emotional immaturity and a heightened level of perversion, not less.

I think most women, and certainly Ms. Dowd of course, would agree with me too that garnering the attentions of a guy by annihilating the competition only makes love or attention that much more disingenuous, does it not?

It appears that love towards a beautiful women represents an enigma in a collective society, a wrinkle, in an otherwise perfect moral ideal that “love” is an acquisition that comes only by way of “careerist aggrandizement” and associated with, yes, you guessed it, money; to which when viewed above the lowest common denominator of thought correlates completely with the rest of their view that happiness in life is a material acquisition and love illusory.

The hate of the beautiful woman, therefore, and the contempt for her sufferings, then, offer a glimpse of the end of the “individual” altogether, and an end too of the independent thought of one's convictions (where the inward success of a man or woman is not in the least material, and genuine and lasting love is independent of what others are doing, which at least used to be all that formerly counted in this country and all that was truly and formerly valued in humanity's past).

So, yet, when we speak of birth control and women’s rights, we are not speaking of the right of a woman to exist absent some kind of control. Who cares about the birth control pill when individual sexual activity in youth will be punished by the emasculation of the body by the government-owned physician, or exploited as a justifiable consequence to what is viewed to be at variance with the purported “progressive” culture and its feminist idea of "gender equality?"

Funnily enough, women under the auspices of the “progressive” movement embrace a theology that is succeeding towards the opposite of its intentions. It loses the individual for a controlled greater good, then fails by putting a “cork” on the individual unconscious that erupts like a volcano when confronted with emotions alien to the collective good (or sterility). Similarily, any Christian apologist knows he or she cannot bring on conversion and new order to the individual when the experience of God is no more than a pantheistic experience that is collective. Does God, a spiritual being, want His sheep to be “good” by rule or law? What would be the point of our fall from grace if we remain unable to discern our interior selves? God forbid. He wants change of heart, He wants desire to know Him, He wants the individual to choose Him (surrender of the "will"). But if the individual is lost to a collective idea of himself, what can any movement offer but only misery?

When will people awaken again to desire their own freedom as individuals? Obviously, their need to control has now morphed into cause for the emasculation of women. And it appears all of it is due to jealousy of sexuality, and although a “sense of inferiority” concerning “wealth” has gotten its share of attention, nothing – or, I should say, very little – has been said about this. Yet, this medical abuse is a symptom of something greater than what the surface of the progressive gender equality implies. So, again, we are confronted with paradoxes from collective views, as though making “the pill” for free use makes our current administration “good” purveyors of woman’s rights and sexual freedom, when in actuality it puts them in control and only camouflages their contempt for who gets what and how in medical care.

As David Pryce-Jones notes in analyzing some totalitarian societies (which is where we are heading) [taken from the wonderful cultural observations of Jamie Glazov in his book United In Hate):

Love comes to be valued not for itself but for its instrumentality . . . both sexes pay a terrible price for this . . . Group defense is inseparable from . . . sexuality. Far from being an absolute and incontestable value, love is careerist aggrandizement and simply that part of the money-favor nexus which takes place in the domestic arena. [“Closed Circle,” Pg. 126 ]

That pretty women in the United States are associated with “wealth” when in fact this is a false presumption is evidence of gender prejudice on its face.

If we want to be truly “progressive” it would best if we all turned our attentions, not to what others are doing, but to ourselves. If we do so, it will no longer be necessary that the “pretty and/or sensual woman” remain an “atonement” for our failings as individuals.

Note to the Reader: I struggled with this article, in part because I wanted to convey the deeper influences of collective ideals and why they are a threat to women, which must be a book since the subject is enormous. And while I wanted to include an Emily Dickinson poem to that end, I decided it would probably be best to leave it for the end of this article. No one or nothing conveys the absolute truth of the essential qualities and blessings of the individual better than she.

I also wanted to mention that while at a university fairly recently, a course on Gender Equality was offered that boasted of offering a deeper understanding of Emily Dickinson’s “gender issues,” as though it were she that was “unconscious” of how they impacted her poetry, which, to me, only evidences further how little understood her poetry is. In her defense, Emily Dickinson's "gender neutrality" is supreme to anything all the gender classes and their teachers could ever convey in a "progressive" gender course. To wit, below is her testimony to that end:

The soul selects her own society,
Then shuts the door;
On her divine majority
Obtrude no more.

Unmoved, she notes the chariot’s pausing
At her low gate;
Unmoved, an emperor is kneeling
Upon her mat.

I’ve known her from an ample nation
Choose one;
Then close the valves of her attention
Like stone.

© 2012 Cynthia Taggart


Submit a Comment

No comments yet.