The synopsis:
Our species evolved — evidently very successfully — over a very long time. (Tens of thousands or hundreds of millions of years, depending upon one’s pet origin theory).
The Human Experience is essentially a narrative, told as an archetypal story with specific characters.
The Father, the initiator of creation, the ruler
The Mother, the receptive, the caregiver and nurturer
The Child, the innocent, the potential
(The theme of the story, BTW, is “How not to die stupidly”! With a sub-plot of “How to live successfully”).
It is through these stories, which have remained constant across time and culture and having profound similar meaning to ALL individuals (genetic memory), that we have built our success as a species.
It stands to reason that if this has been the narrative that has proven so outrageously successful over such a significant time, it will likely continue to be. Another “updated” narrative MIGHT be better. But we know that the old narrative has already absolutely and empirically proven exceptionally successful AND temporally stable.
It is the narrative by which we have overcome all obstacles/challenges to our species’ existence since the beginning of time .
But how can it continue to do so if every time we strike up the narrative to solve some pressing personal, social, or racial issue, it’s derailed in trying to re-write the characters?
The dialogue falls off the tracks (thanks to political correctness and identity-group power-politics) into endless debates of character re-definition and systems that MIGHT work better . . . while the more critical unresolved issues of social and species importance stack up against us.
© 2026 – SoulSequel
29 responses to “Are we wasting our time trying to re-write history, our minds, and even evolution, in more “feminine-friendly” (or worse, “gender-friendly”) terms?”
I have seen the various alternative gender names, and an attempt to have others use them. It’s baffling, even when you consider them in terms of sexuality and people transitioning from their current gender to another, but it’s a part of trying to get society to overlook various differences. While laudable in some sense… use what we have, and open a discussion about the harm the current ideology has, don’t make up random labels that no one knows anything about.
@Jear77
Most of these new movements claim things like being of tolerance, peace, acceptance etc.
But these lies are evident when you note how they respond to people who’s mindset they cannot control. What these ideologies are after is power. Period.
And any small opposition is systematically and rather viciously attacked. This is their spirit.
So I would ask again, could trying to re-write all the narritives that have worked so well up ’till now . . . worth the effort AND cost to freedoms of everyone that “is not them”?
It’s a very dangerous experiment. One we failed to learn from the murderous 20th Century . . . and now want to try again?
@griz the narrative does need to change to see people as people, regardless of choices made in terms of gender identity / reassignment and sexual orientation. Having said this, once again, use whar we have. Invention of additional labels is unnecessary and convolutes things.
@Jear77
We need to watch that in the zeal to change it, we don’t change it into something reprehensible.
@griz be that as it may, the issue is with activity freely chosen.
@Jear77
Which would have to include the freedom to artificially imprison oneself.
@griz if that is their choice we can on no way interfere.
@Jear77
I have ever only advocated control over one’s own process.
@griz here’s something to chew on: at what point does discussing a topic cross over from control of one’s own process to an attempt to control the other person?
@Jear77
When one party or the other is not free.
There needs to be an updated narrative, and that is in the works.
Jesus would never say “God hates fags”, as Westboro did, for instance.
Jesus and God love everyone.
@five2one
There is no new revelation, or narrative for us beyond Christ. Unless one wanted to call Christ insufficient.
Only great thumping fools mistake Westboro Baptists as spokespersons for God.
And only slightly lesser fools mistake the message of religion as the pure message of God.
@griz I believe there is a new book spoken of in Revelation, but can not find that right now. That aside…
God does not hate fags, transvestites, nor lesbians. Moses wrote those Laws, not the Angel of the Lord. That is exactly the revelation people need to hear.
This also means some of what Paul wrote was not from God, but his own limited understandings as is typical for these books.
Questions?? That should be a new revelation to you, or did you already figure that out?
@griz Also Jesus can give new revelations when he comes back.
@five2one
In the guise of you.
Riiight.
@griz Uh, I am not Jesus…lol…I am Lucifer, but you cant even believe that, can you.
Never claimed to be Jesus, either.
(If i did when bo drunk i was being sarcastic.
Jesus is coming back and will rule in the holy city ehich comes down from heaven.
This is all basic knowledge, it is a shame that you do not know these things.
No, I don’t think it’s a waste of time.
I understand where you’re coming from, though. This is a very nuanced issue, and we’re living in an age where sensationalism takes precedent in the media – thusly the media is not displaying the civil conversations that are taking place every day. They’re digging into the hyper-polarization, with the extreme right-wingers yelling one thing and social justice warriors snapping over a misused pronoun. This is a dangerously simplified presentation of things, but sadly, this issue in the media is responsible for a lot of problems right now. I’m digressing a little, though.
In regards to re-writing history? No, we shouldn’t re-write history. I think it’s very important to understand where we’ve went wrong in the past, including these wrongs in the historical curriculum so we may learn from them, and then return focus to the present. I know plenty of academics who spend all of their time applying modern morality to historical figures. To me, this seems like a waste of time when taken too far, but the essence of what they’re trying to do is beneficial. However, this too has been hyped up by the media.
In regards to our minds? Absolutely. Why not? Because it’s challenging? Because it makes you uncomfortable? Because it will require a modicum of effort to change? I am willing to do my small part in this because I know how much it means to those who are advocating for it. Whether or not you are pro-LGTBQ, if your minimal change makes that person happy, then what do you really gain from remaining fixed in your ways other than avoiding some effort?
In regards to the SJW and political correct fanatics, the “femi-nazi’s” and angry folks screaming into cameras until they’re blue in the face over an accidentally misused pronoun – this too is not an accurate representation of how things actually are. These are representations of the fringe, and they are aired and posted about because it will garner more views and clicks to watch a SJW spaz out than it will to watch one give a composed, well-thought out speech. When the spaz’s take up more airtime, they begin to represent the majority. Most of these social justice warriors, feminists, activists, etc., are patient people who are willing to discuss, debate, and educate about what they’re passionate about.
I’m in a bit of a rush so I don’t have time to run back through what I’ve just written here, so I hope it isn’t rambling. I know it’s been a while since I’ve posted, but I’d like to note that I have been making it a very strong point in my life to walk both sides of the political line. I spend as much time on liberal arts campuses in cities as I do on farms out in the boonies, and I spend as much time with each demographic. I’m a writer these days, as I’ve always been, and I don’t see much of a point in getting half of the story.
@saintcharlie
Thanks for your reply. I enjoyed reading it. I didn’t find it rambling.
A point for consideration: even without a polarizing and sensationalizing media the discussion seems to turn away from gratitude for the boons of our past, to the faults of it (actual and perceived). Just 1/2 the story?
The logistical fail in the postmodern logic of “what will it cost you to do some work to make them happy” . . . Is that it doesn’t flow both ways.
And too often even the patient ones who will try to explain and “educate”, will expose a very dark side if you won’t swallow biased arguments, flawed studies, uni-varied analysis, and logic flaws in their ideology’s base platform.
There is room for intelligent and rational discussion and improvement. But not at the behest of some very dangerous ideologies — and the ideologues they crank out who spout the propaganda but cannot endure intelligent discussion or critical analysis of it.
They fall into the same meme as religious proselytizers who will condemn you to hell if they can’t convert you.
From what you’re saying, If the narrative shapes reality, than to get to a better reality, yes you have to re-shape the narrative to re-shape reality.
It’s not re-writing characters so much as it is adding characters to the narrative so no derailment,… just more characters.
Even in Swiss Family Robinson if Cecil Parker doesn’t show up the pirates’ll rape the women & kill or enslave the males.
To suggest that the narrative is limited to the family structure is tunnel vision.
@luftballooneyegouge
Does the narrative shape reality or the other way around?
(Try asking if reality existed before we came along to provide narrative. And the answer is yes it did because there is fossil record. Plus we see “reality” has been unfolding in the Cosmos without Almighty us to provide narrative.)
I’m not sure if we can add or subtract archetypes to the Grand Narrative of Humanity just because at 1 second’s tick on the clock we suddenly decide we might feel better about ourselves if we did.
(Which is essentially all it comes down to)
Consider that in the eons of Humanity’s literature entertainment and wisdom traditions, there have truly been no new characters added to the archetypal narrative. They are all just amalgams of existing characters. (And denial of characters in that archetypal narrative create psychopathy – as per Jung)
So what is it we think has happened in just the past 57 years, to grant us the power (the hubris?) to rewrite these archetypal things?
@griz
Hermaphroditus, Eunuchs, Paul Lynde!! BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Wrong Again
Griz Drinkin Game™, Take one helping of a mood relaxer everytime I get
“Consider”………………
All that archetype narrative diversion is just another attempt by (a) human(s) to pretend there is something in control. When, if it’s not themselves, it’s God.
When it’s not either, it’s (the) (d)evil.
@luftballooneyegouge
We are distinguished from all the other creatures by our desire for understanding.
Callow and profiteering seekers stop short at seeing only a means to control and manipulate for their own gllory.
But the true purpose of knowledge is to understand how a unkowledgeable we truly are. (Ie, every answer to question reveals a dozen new questions)
@griz said, “We are distinguished from all the other creatures by our desire for understanding.
Callow and profiteering seekers stop short at seeing only a means to control and manipulate for their own gllory.
But the true purpose of knowledge is to understand how a unkowledgeable we truly are. (Ie, every answer to question reveals a dozen new questions)”
Here’s my pasted response from http://sebpearce.com/bullshit/
aka the New-Age Bullshit Generator
“Today, science tells us that the essence of nature is consciousness.
Transformation requires exploration. Consciousness consists of transmissions of quantum energy. “Quantum” means a refining of the astral.
The infinite is calling to you via psionic wave oscillations. Can you hear it?
The current of awareness is now happening worldwide. Eons from now, we storytellers will self-actualize like never before as we are aligned by the stratosphere. The future will be a divine condensing of aspiration.”
“Although you may not realize it, you are quantum. It can be difficult to know where to begin. Visitor, look within and beckon yourself.
We must ground ourselves and awaken others. It is in awakening that we are guided. We are being called to explore the quantum soup itself as an interface between coherence and growth.”
“If you have never experienced this rebirth inherent in nature, it can be difficult to exist. How should you navigate this non-local dreamscape? Have you found your path?
We are at a crossroads of intuition and turbulence. We are in the midst of an ancient awakening of joy that will be a gateway to the biosphere itself. Reality has always been buzzing with storytellers whose souls are transformed into guidance.”
same shit different day
@luftballooneyegouge
That’s more post-modernism than New Age.
(Hence my saying that Jacques Derrida would be proud)
@griz
…figures
“So take Derrida, one of the grand old men. I thought I ought to at least be able to understand his Grammatology, so tried to read it. I could make out some of it, for example, the critical analysis of classical texts that I knew very well and had written about years before. I found the scholarship appalling, based on pathetic misreading; and the argument, such as it was, failed to come close to the kinds of standards I’ve been familiar with since virtually childhood.”-Noam Chomsky
@luftballooneyegouge
If you can’t blind them with your brilliance . . . eh?
Maybe the mood relaxers are having an undesirable side effect?
@griz
…also doesn’t qualify as re-writing history.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
@griz said, “Does the narrative shape reality or the other way around?”
I’m not agreeing to your whole narrative/reality schtick in the 1st place, so your binary choice selection is meaningless to me.
You’re all about labels……….
@luftballooneyegouge
Jacques Derrida would be proud!
(Quick! To the bowl of mood relaxers, lest learning ensues!)