Session 28 June 2025

[daddycat]

(Joe) Does Trump know about Palestinians and the kind of mass murder and genocide that's going on there?

A: Yes

Q: (Joe) And does he care? Does it bother him? Is he perturbed by it?

A: Somewhat. But his hands are tied. He thinks he can untangle the knots. Wait and see.

Trump is trying, the Cs said wait and see, and yet people are abandoning him now as if he was the same as Harris, Biden, Obama, Bush, Clinton.

Trump is going to need all the help he can get to fight the interface of 4D STS.

A: Mossad is near the apex of the 3D consortium. The lines blur at that level.

(Perceval) That's what they said at the time, that 4D battles represent as weather. And Mossad is close...

(L) It's getting close to interfacing...

A: Yes

 

[seek10]

Could these two groups have been similar in many ways to the Freemasons and Rosicrucians today in that they were all male brotherhoods, who possibly represented a prevailing patriarchy? If so, I could see why the surviving Atlantean women may have blamed them for the cataclysm, which could have in itself have been a repeat of what happened on Kantek.

Assuming Freemasons are formed in Near East, looking at the following diagram, Freemasons are formed during the formation time of bottleneck (massacres) around 5600 BCE. What if Freemasons as secret "male only club" (at least during earlier phases) are reactionary to female massacres? Now a day's we call them 'terrorist cells' or 'insurgency' etc.

Overlapped diagram.

If one's own enemy (and one's own basic survival is at stake) is at home, what is the point of grand "conspiracies" of global dominance that are associated with current day 33rd level Freemasons (even that seems to be not correct).

 

[Ruth]

Trump is trying, the Cs said wait and see, and yet people are abandoning him now as if he was the same as Harris, Biden, Obama, Bush, Clinton.

His behaviour is exactly the same (if not worse), because people had such high hopes for him. They feel betrayed. There is nothing worse than being arrogant enough to think that you can betray your base and get away with it.

Trump is going to need all the help he can get to fight the interface of 4D STS.

My guess is that he doesn't even acknowledge it's existence. A person who is clueless as to how badly his own administration is compromised (and doesn't even want to know), isn't much use in a 'fight' against anything, much less that kind of evil THAT's why people have stopped supporting him, in my opinion. He and his administration are not standing up for anyone, they've caved to evil.

 

[Voyageur]

So, where the C's say "one day, in 4th density, it will be your descendants mission to carry on the tradition and assignment of seeding the 3rd density universe, once you have the adequate knowledge!!!”, does this mean the choices the human race make as we transition to 4D will decide if we get either Gene Roddenberry's peaceful Federation or the evil Terran STS empire should we lose the battle with STS forces over the 4D world that emerges post the Wave and the realm border crossing?

Yikes, I hope we don't become the Borg .

Ah, yet recall in 2002 the question of 4d balance:

(A) You must understand that the very concept of balance depends on what exactly has to be balanced. When you have a scale, and you have a lot of wheat or something on one side, and a small piece of gold on the other, they balance each other even if the quantities are completely different.

(V) Maybe STO candidates carry a larger...(L) Charge? (V) Yeah. (L) Something like that, because they share very deeply - at the level of their core being. (V) So there could be 90% of STS and at 10% STO candidates as they gain knowledge gain more weight. (L) Could be.

A: Very close. But don't get stuck on numbers in that sense. Help is on the way!

 

[cbi]

From what I understand, people can become 4D candidates on either the STO or the STS path, which involves the raising of the FRV or frequency at least on the STO path. Which seems to be basically the same as increasing our frequency towards 4D.

I've have doubt about this, in particularly with the Ra Material examples of Grigori Rasputin (STS) and Francesco d’Assisi (STO). Could you elaborate why these two individuals raised their FRV in their respective path? In the case of the former, we have a direct allusion:

Q: (Ze Germanz) Who killed Rasputin and why?
A: The equivalent of Mossad for those times.
Q: (L) And why?
A: Too much influence on royal family plus the ability to foresee danger.

And in the case of the latter:

Like the founder of the Franciscan Order, St Francis of Assisi, he bore the stigmata wounds of Christ's crucifixion on his hands and his side.

The bore of stigmata isn't a good sign per se; On the contrary: according to my reading, in particularly, Herbert Thurston's Los Fenómenos Físicos del Misticismo, it's a sign of a traumatic infancy, beyond taking the falsehood of the tale of Christian Literalism's crucifixion as a veridical fact.

When I read Omer Englebert's Vida de San Francisco de Asis, it seems his father tormented him with a violent childhood to the point of imprisoning him, so the stigmata can be a product of a subconscious unbalanced primer when he reached by praying (hesychasm), his connection with upper centers. In Gurdjieff' terms, would this not be an example of “stupid saint?”

 

[Asa]

Thanks for another great session, and the discussion it inspired. I found Michael- B-C's study of Gobekli Tepe, linked by a member in this thread, particularly fascinating.

Whilst reading Michael's research and contemplating the Y chromosome bottleneck, some thoughts came to mind:

1) The two competing theories for explanation of the 1-17 ratio - either the proportion of males that successfully reproduced, or dramatic increases to male mortality - both, potentially, fit an outcome whereby the 'type' of male permitted to reproduce and leave a genetic legacy is around 6% or 'normal' rates.
2) That figure is uncannily close to the population percentage purported to be essentially psychopathic.
3) I wonder if those circumstances were engineered to plant, in all future generations, the seed of the ubiquitous predators mind.
4) In the context of this forum's research into the consequences of cataclysm induced by cometary bombardment and explosion, I find the timing of the bottleneck - during a particularly turbulent period, pre, concurrent with and post Younger Dryas - to be fascinating. Its like the 4D PTB are intent upon mitigating any potential upswell in STO tendencies induced by the genetic variation that, per the Tunguska trees for example, may follow cometary explosion or bombardment.
5) If Michael B-Cs research is correct, then the timing of construction of Gobekli Tepe may have served a similar purpose.
6) At somewhat of a tangent from the above, I think a dramatic increase in male mortality needn't imply female violence. If the status quo is as ancient as Michael' B-C's research suggests viz-a-viz secret societies, then the PTB of the time probably used its monopoly on large scale, organized and potentially legitimized violence to cull the male population. They could probably pull it off to this day - if you sent the army into London or somewhere like that with instructions to kill 95% of men, I argue they'd succeed against an unarmed and untrained population.

Thanks once again for session.

 

[Ben]

Thanks for another great session, and the discussion it inspired. I found Michael- B-C's study of Gobekli Tepe, linked by a member in this thread, particularly fascinating.

Whilst reading Michael's research and contemplating the Y chromosome bottleneck, some thoughts came to mind:

1) The two competing theories for explanation of the 1-17 ratio - either the proportion of males that successfully reproduced, or dramatic increases to male mortality - both, potentially, fit an outcome whereby the 'type' of male permitted to reproduce and leave a genetic legacy is around 6% or 'normal' rates.

The proportion of males which reproduce does not significantly affect the Y-chromosome ratio in a population. The chance of male offspring remains the same. Only a reduction in the number of males born, or their mortality rate, can do that.

 

[lilies]

(Joe) So it's a beautiful symbiosis of human and machine coming together. You're adding the human element to...
(L) It's only going to work with me because...
(Joe) And it's transhumanism. [laughter] They want to have Grok installed in your brain by Elon Musk.
(L) No, absolutely not! Absolutely not!
(Joe) That's what Musk wants to do.

Couldn't believe what I saw. Musk had four marriages with three wives already?! Checked him out while listening to Podcast Ep.10., there hearing how Musk doesn't really care about UFOs. Can he be an OP? So we know that families are halved by 50% souled and 50% OP for better feeding setup to Orion STS. To lock souled into hard-to-escape social situations. So I just wanted to hear and watch Musk's wife on video. I supposed he is traditional with one eternally lasting relationship. But when I saw this, OMG! I mean, in the past Musk proved multiple times he may be an OP with his deeds. But this?! I understand most males dream of a harem of attractive girls, like a super-rich sultan. So when the magic in one relationship disappears, there are ample young wife candidates waiting in line: e.g. a harem. But to see this common dreamy wish being realized and functioning in real life! He is super rich, like a sultan.

Elon Musk's brood just keeps growing. The Tesla mogul has at least 14 children with four women.
Musk welcomed six kids with his first wife, Justine Wilson, three with his ex-girlfriend Grimes, four with his Neuralink executive Shivon Zilis and reportedly another one with author Ashley St. Clair

One thing is playing with the dreamy TV script of impregnating as many young women as one wishes in some weird dramedy.. but to see an oligarch do it in real life?
Its like Musk uses wives, how people use mobile phones. Some people have multiple phones already.. Kinda still liking the old one, but there is always the new shiny attractive model and men must have those as well! Doesn't feel like Musk has a soul, judging by how he cares about relationships. Just a souped-up OP? I don't think he can multitask and teach and discipline a class of 14 kids and answer their 67 "Why is this working like this?"-questions every couple hours per day, like normal dads are forced to do. Essentially his 14 children are being neglected by their father, I think, because there is no way on Earth he can give attention to even two or three kids per day. Looks more like a calculating Hybrid wanting to spread his seeds to produce more little hybrids in the shortest possible time.
In order to be able say to the aliens:
- Look how viable am I in reproduction! Can I remain in a top management position after y'all are done with humanity?

 

[Pluchi]

Modern feminism (anti patriarchy and anti capitalism) and social and gender equality(of outcome a.k.a. road to communism) ideologies are in their essence anti life.

Life flows freely in accordance with the creators design and with respect to free will. It is reflected in the free market principle, and the best representation of that principle that we have in this world so far is the capitalist system (which of course has been meddled with by governments interferance and often times with the help of those same insidious ideologies like neo feminism and 'equality' and give money/power from hands of earners and builders(mostly men) to hands of consumers (mostly women). That is clear interferance in the natural flow of the free market, and thus in the natural flow of life.

Feminist ideologies are false and are actively contributing and leading to the downfall of civilisation. Women in general have always had advantage in life compared to men. It's a simple fact of life because (in general) everything that men do and create and fight for, they do for women. They go 'hunting in the wilderness' for women, they go to war for women, they build homes (and the civilisation) itself for women. Because women both can't and don't want to do that. And that is okay. We are not the same. Men are not same as women. Women (in their general aspect) mostly want to receive and men(in their general aspect) mostly want to give. Men build and provide and protect, women nurture, make house into a warm home and raise children. We are different and that is okay.

The advice that neo feminism gives to women is advice for men! 'be strong independent career oriented woman' a.k.a. be a man, a.k.a. don't be a woman, a.k.a. anti life. And simoultaneously for some devious reason it hates men, it wants to take away power from men, a.k.a make men weaker, which is a recipe for downfall of civilisation. Remember it's weak men make hard times (for a reason), not weak women.

And men have been doing those unwanted dangerous jobs (including dying in wars) so that women(and children) would be protected, sacrificing themselves for women. Almost no woman would do the same. We are not equal. And it's a basic law of life that the one who would sacrifice their life for the other is the one who is in charge. Power and responsibility come one with another. No (sane) woman wants that responsibility that comes with that power of authority. Feminism wants just the power for women (and to steal it from men unfairly avoiding the free market rules), but none of the responsibility.

And don't forget that the majority of useless jobs that have been artificially created by the government are occupied by women. Most of the bureaucracy jobs, most of the social and gender studies jobs (and not the arctic drilling jobs or construction jobs etc.) are done by women. And it seems your study is a path to that same type of useless job that is feeding the anti life system that is draining resources from men and by extension and down the line draining the resources from women too. Because men in general spend their resource on women. And just like in the self sacrifice example, the vice versa isn't true. And that is another (of the many pro life reasons) why men by natural order, the order of the free market of life itself, are the ones that are supposed to be in charge. Because a man protects, provides and is willing to self sacrifice for his woman. At least a strong man does. Patriarchy works (for the good of men and women alike and the civilisation as a whole... it's the best system that we have had that has proved that it works).

If it's up to neo feminist ideology, all men should be weak and then down the line that would lead to their extermination and the extermination of life in general. Neo feminism is like the devouring/destructive aspect of the feminine, like the example of godess Shiva the destroyer.

I read somewhere that the bravery/strength of a man is in his ability to lead and the bravery/strength of a woman is in her ability to follow. Today we have a population of weak cowardly both men and women, and it is not leading our society as a whole to nowhere good, as we can all notice. But I believe it's up to men to take charge and responsibility to become strong (because we are supposed to be leaders by natures design, and women in general aren't designed to be leaders..mostly because of their emotional/hormonal natures), and then women would naturally follow. And feminism ideology is one of the obstacles that's standing in the way of that. There are smart women out there who understand that they don't want and are mot man, and are happy to find and follow a good man who will be the head of the family.

That partly part you are missing that Cs replied as the answer to the question about islamic(still traditional) countries, likely is answered (at least in part) in my post about likely actual practical usefuleness of women body coverings (from higher perspective and in possible memory and understanding of what the feminism-like ideology corruption did to both men and women and the society as a whole in past and now extinct civilisations), the post that you very likely disliked on the emotional reaction.
But maybe I'm wrong.

Modern feminism (anti patriarchy and anti capitalism) and social and gender equality(of outcome a.k.a. road to communism) ideologies are in their essence anti life.

Life flows freely in accordance with the creators design and with respect to free will. It is reflected in the free market principle, and the best representation of that principle that we have in this world so far is the capitalist system (which of course has been meddled with by governments interferance and often times with the help of those same insidious ideologies like neo feminism and 'equality' and give money/power from hands of earners and builders(mostly men) to hands of consumers (mostly women). That is clear interferance in the natural flow of the free market, and thus in the natural flow of life.

Feminist ideologies are false and are actively contributing and leading to the downfall of civilisation. Women in general have always had advantage in life compared to men. It's a simple fact of life because (in general) everything that men do and create and fight for, they do for women. They go 'hunting in the wilderness' for women, they go to war for women, they build homes (and the civilisation) itself for women. Because women both can't and don't want to do that. And that is okay. We are not the same. Men are not same as women. Women (in their general aspect) mostly want to receive and men(in their general aspect) mostly want to give. Men build and provide and protect, women nurture, make house into a warm home and raise children. We are different and that is okay.

The advice that neo feminism gives to women is advice for men! 'be strong independent career oriented woman' a.k.a. be a man, a.k.a. don't be a woman, a.k.a. anti life. And simoultaneously for some devious reason it hates men, it wants to take away power from men, a.k.a make men weaker, which is a recipe for downfall of civilisation. Remember it's weak men make hard times (for a reason), not weak women.

And men have been doing those unwanted dangerous jobs (including dying in wars) so that women(and children) would be protected, sacrificing themselves for women. Almost no woman would do the same. We are not equal. And it's a basic law of life that the one who would sacrifice their life for the other is the one who is in charge. Power and responsibility come one with another. No (sane) woman wants that responsibility that comes with that power of authority. Feminism wants just the power for women (and to steal it from men unfairly avoiding the free market rules), but none of the responsibility.

And don't forget that the majority of useless jobs that have been artificially created by the government are occupied by women. Most of the bureaucracy jobs, most of the social and gender studies jobs (and not the arctic drilling jobs or construction jobs etc.) are done by women. And it seems your study is a path to that same type of useless job that is feeding the anti life system that is draining resources from men and by extension and down the line draining the resources from women too. Because men in general spend their resource on women. And just like in the self sacrifice example, the vice versa isn't true. And that is another (of the many pro life reasons) why men by natural order, the order of the free market of life itself, are the ones that are supposed to be in charge. Because a man protects, provides and is willing to self sacrifice for his woman. At least a strong man does. Patriarchy works (for the good of men and women alike and the civilisation as a whole... it's the best system that we have had that has proved that it works).

If it's up to neo feminist ideology, all men should be weak and then down the line that would lead to their extermination and the extermination of life in general. Neo feminism is like the devouring/destructive aspect of the feminine, like the example of godess Shiva the destroyer.

I read somewhere that the bravery/strength of a man is in his ability to lead and the bravery/strength of a woman is in her ability to follow. Today we have a population of weak cowardly both men and women, and it is not leading our society as a whole to nowhere good, as we can all notice. But I believe it's up to men to take charge and responsibility to become strong (because we are supposed to be leaders by natures design, and women in general aren't designed to be leaders..mostly because of their emotional/hormonal natures), and then women would naturally follow. And feminism ideology is one of the obstacles that's standing in the way of that. There are smart women out there who understand that they don't want and are mot man, and are happy to find and follow a good man who will be the head of the family.

That partly part you are missing that Cs replied as the answer to the question about islamic(still traditional) countries, likely is answered (at least in part) in my post about likely actual practical usefuleness of women body coverings (from higher perspective and in possible memory and understanding of what the feminism-like ideology corruption did to both men and women and the society as a whole in past and now extinct civilisations), the post that you very likely disliked on the emotional reaction.
But maybe I'm wrong.

Hello, @Seredipity!

I never heard of neo feminism, but I think that you are referring to White feminism in your post. I also agree that males and females have had roles throughout history, but it does not mean that females have not carried out leadership roles successfully. I believe that it is not feasible to say that your destiny is sealed because of your sex. I disliked a post earlier (my apologies as I cannot quote him/her at the moment) because the idea that “weak men make hard times, strong men…” has been used as propaganda. There have always been both weak men and women and strong men and women–– physically and psychologically; it is not something that comes in waves. It just happens because society is complex.

One of the big debates in feminism is that White feminist thought cannot make peace with Black or decolonial feminist thought. Decolonial feminism is about regaining balance but not at the detriment of men. Family, community, and ancestral knowledge are at the center. How is that contributing to the downfall of civilization?

Decolonial feminism is about repositioning women in their rightful place, not because they are women but because strong-willed women also have a place in society. Colonized women were dispossessed of their rights, e.g., the right to own land and to be community leaders–– which was taken away during colonization. In the hierarchical make-up of the new society, first, there was the White man, then their (White) women, followed by all the other (colonized) men due to their physical strength and the value that they brought to the colonizers (think slavery/servitude). Colonized women, on the other hand, were comparable to animals. They had no rights whatsoever, were raped, beaten, killed, and not one person was held responsible. If black, mestizo, or zambo men messed with a White (or Criolla—White descendant) woman, that meant death. Here is where feminists from all different branches cannot forgive each other. White women were as guilty of abuse as their men; they abused Blacks and Mestizas or turned their heads.

Much has not changed despite a supposed civilized Latin-American society (notice that I am NOT referring to White feminists). In general, women are still abused, mocked, undermined, and perceived as less intelligent because there is an innate mistrust that has been fed in society since colonial times. Yes, there are weak women, but also, there are weak men. It is about finding that man/woman balance. Like @ccelestialmarriage states above, we should understand the two-sex system.

You state that “men have been doing those unwanted dangerous jobs (including dying in wars) so that women(and children) would be protected, sacrificing themselves for women,” but men who went to war are thinking of some kind of compensation; surely, a few will think about going home to their wives, usually the ones who are drafted against their will. The unwanted dangerous jobs, e.g., working at an oil rig in the middle of the ocean, match their physical strength, so let them have it. But, working in a lab with dangerous chemicals/bacteria is also something that women do well and is valuable to society.

Patriarchy has turned feminist thought around in such a clever way that it has both men and women believing that feminism is a fallacy. Just understand that most feminists are pro-life, pro-family, and only want to be treated with justice and be able to provide with dignity in their communities.

 

[Pluchi]

If there was a true toxic tyrannical patriarchy, then I imagine it would look something like this: men deciding they want to rule and use women because they are stronger and because they can. They got tired of building homes and infrastructure for women and decide to live in the nature, which women can't. And also they decide they had enough of doing romance stuff for women and risking their life and providing for them. So they lock all the women and use them for theit base biological need of sex and feed them enough to live and to serve them and to bring forth the children so the species doesnt go extinct.

1. Colonialism is a perfect example of a toxic, tyrannical patriarchal system (India, Africa, Latin America)
2. Women CAN live in nature, have you visited/read about the Yanomami, Pemon (among other) communities? Women do more than weave baskets, my friend.

 

[Ruth]

From my perspective death of physical body in fully conscious state is simply the best .

From my perspective it wouldn't be the case. That is why people who "die in their sleep" are often seen as lucky. If you wanted to be fully conscious at the time of your death you would most likely suffer trauma and shock and maybe even extreme pain if you had something like bone metastasis - think of an accident, for example, or torture. These are fully conscious states in which people die. Not at all pleasant and very traumatic.

 

[DianaRose]

Interesting session. Two things struck out the part about Trump and male genocide in the past.

It's going to interesting when Trump supporters wake up to the fact that he isn't the saviour they expected to be.

Regarding the feminism debate. Honestly, imo the real danger in today's society isn't that men are undermined, but rather that they have become prone to self-pity, self-victimisation, and in some ways, you could argue that they have become the snowflakes women that they despise. These days if a man can't get a wife, doesn't rise the ladder in his career, feel lonely...etc - it is always society's fault. There's never a look at what boys/ men are doing wrong that are setting them back. It's never that maybe, they're just not stepping up to the plate of the modern world.

Keep in mind that there was time when women couldn't open a bank account on their own, when divorcing meant financial disaster, when having kids meant that they had to give up their career whether they wanted or not, where discrimination against women in the workplace was tolerated and borderline encouraged . I could go on, yet they were still women doing amazing things despite all the outward challenges. I'm sorry but as far as I can see, the modern "challenges" of men don't even come close to the above. And to be honest, to this days there are still industries that are not kind to women such as finance/ banking, and in any industries being a white men is definitely an advantage.

In regard to work/ career, I work in the corporate world with a decent enough position, so when people keep on claiming that women are fast-tracked towards leadership role, I'm always puzzled. Yes, there are programs in certain industries that promote girls/ women to work in those industries but that doesn't make their life easier. The reality is that most of time girls will be ultra serious with their education and laser focused on getting what degrees/ certificate they need while by comparisons a lot of boys their age would rather play video games or watch some guru on youtube. Similarly, at work I've noticed that girls tend to be a lot more assiduous and focused on climbing the ladder. However, hardship is there and gender and race do make things harder. To this day, there's definitely more advantage to disadvantage to being a men in the workplace, and if you have the right colour, you're golden.

Actually, I'll go further, even when you look at teenagers, girls far outperform boys. I've seen that first hand through my nieces and nephews. In all their respective schools, girls are swooping all categories - not because they are favoured, but simply because they work harder and are more focused.

Imo, people should stop using sensational news stories as their way to measure real life.

 

[DianaRose]

Modern feminism (anti patriarchy and anti capitalism) and social and gender equality(of outcome a.k.a. road to communism) ideologies are in their essence anti life.

Life flows freely in accordance with the creators design and with respect to free will. It is reflected in the free market principle, and the best representation of that principle that we have in this world so far is the capitalist system (which of course has been meddled with by governments interferance and often times with the help of those same insidious ideologies like neo feminism and 'equality' and give money/power from hands of earners and builders(mostly men) to hands of consumers (mostly women). That is clear interferance in the natural flow of the free market, and thus in the natural flow of life.

Feminist ideologies are false and are actively contributing and leading to the downfall of civilisation. Women in general have always had advantage in life compared to men. It's a simple fact of life because (in general) everything that men do and create and fight for, they do for women. They go 'hunting in the wilderness' for women, they go to war for women, they build homes (and the civilisation) itself for women. Because women both can't and don't want to do that. And that is okay. We are not the same. Men are not same as women. Women (in their general aspect) mostly want to receive and men(in their general aspect) mostly want to give. Men build and provide and protect, women nurture, make house into a warm home and raise children. We are different and that is okay.

The advice that neo feminism gives to women is advice for men! 'be strong independent career oriented woman' a.k.a. be a man, a.k.a. don't be a woman, a.k.a. anti life. And simoultaneously for some devious reason it hates men, it wants to take away power from men, a.k.a make men weaker, which is a recipe for downfall of civilisation. Remember it's weak men make hard times (for a reason), not weak women.

And men have been doing those unwanted dangerous jobs (including dying in wars) so that women(and children) would be protected, sacrificing themselves for women. Almost no woman would do the same. We are not equal. And it's a basic law of life that the one who would sacrifice their life for the other is the one who is in charge. Power and responsibility come one with another. No (sane) woman wants that responsibility that comes with that power of authority. Feminism wants just the power for women (and to steal it from men unfairly avoiding the free market rules), but none of the responsibility.

And don't forget that the majority of useless jobs that have been artificially created by the government are occupied by women. Most of the bureaucracy jobs, most of the social and gender studies jobs (and not the arctic drilling jobs or construction jobs etc.) are done by women. And it seems your study is a path to that same type of useless job that is feeding the anti life system that is draining resources from men and by extension and down the line draining the resources from women too. Because men in general spend their resource on women. And just like in the self sacrifice example, the vice versa isn't true. And that is another (of the many pro life reasons) why men by natural order, the order of the free market of life itself, are the ones that are supposed to be in charge. Because a man protects, provides and is willing to self sacrifice for his woman. At least a strong man does. Patriarchy works (for the good of men and women alike and the civilisation as a whole... it's the best system that we have had that has proved that it works).

If it's up to neo feminist ideology, all men should be weak and then down the line that would lead to their extermination and the extermination of life in general. Neo feminism is like the devouring/destructive aspect of the feminine, like the example of godess Shiva the destroyer.

I read somewhere that the bravery/strength of a man is in his ability to lead and the bravery/strength of a woman is in her ability to follow. Today we have a population of weak cowardly both men and women, and it is not leading our society as a whole to nowhere good, as we can all notice. But I believe it's up to men to take charge and responsibility to become strong (because we are supposed to be leaders by natures design, and women in general aren't designed to be leaders..mostly because of their emotional/hormonal natures), and then women would naturally follow. And feminism ideology is one of the obstacles that's standing in the way of that. There are smart women out there who understand that they don't want and are mot man, and are happy to find and follow a good man who will be the head of the family.

That partly part you are missing that Cs replied as the answer to the question about islamic(still traditional) countries, likely is answered (at least in part) in my post about likely actual practical usefuleness of women body coverings (from higher perspective and in possible memory and understanding of what the feminism-like ideology corruption did to both men and women and the society as a whole in past and now extinct civilisations), the post that you very likely disliked on the emotional reaction.
But maybe I'm wrong.

Lol that's an interesting post. To begin with most war are manufactured, and the men that volunteer do so due to constraint, desire for glory, potential financial rewards, nationalistic feelings but definitely not for women. I do agree that you have a lot of men in dangerous jobs that are needed such as construction. But you realise that often the burden of actually running a household, rearing children, making sure that money actually goes where it's needed fall on women? Also, I do remember studies that stated that even back when hunting was a thing, women had a much larger role in hunting than what originally thought.

Men have bigger strength. But people keep on forgetting that often ingenuity can make up for raw physical strength. And women have ingenuity plenty, and imo, almost seem more naturally creative than men.

Regardless of whether most jobs related to social and gender studies are occupied by women, the reality is that jobs in those particular fields are an extreme minority. So your point doesn't stand. I'll go even further and say that most people outside the internet know nothing and don't care for social/ gender studies, except if you're talking about something like social work/ therapy.

I don't know what industry you're in, but it seems like you simply don't really value anything that isn't physical oriented, even though other type of jobs are needed if you want to run a society.

So women don't protect, provide, or self-sacrifice? Again most studies show that women tend to be better team player, more empathetic and kinder to be around. Similarly, I've heard way more people talk about the sacrifices that their mom/ grandmother/ daughter did for them for their future than I hear of self-sacrifice from dad/ son. Also, I've seen plenty of men be as emotional or even more emotional than women. Look around around the world. As for women not being designed to be leader...I mean that's an interesting take.

Lastly, so does that mean that only men should be strong and career-oriented? And that strong, career-oriented women = bad/ anti-life. Keeping in mind that many career-oriented women are actually married with kids.

Honestly, I don't know if that represent how you feel, but your post came across like you hate women and you're annoyed that men are no longer the de-facto leader of the world.

 

[DianaRose]

Interesting session. Two things struck out the part about Trump and male genocide in the past.

It's going to interesting when Trump supporters wake up to the fact that he isn't the saviour they expected to be.

Regarding the feminism debate. Honestly, imo the real danger in today's society isn't that men are undermined, but rather that they have become prone to self-pity, self-victimisation, and in some ways, you could argue that they have become the snowflakes women that they despise. These days if a man can't get a wife, doesn't rise the ladder in his career, feel lonely...etc - it is always society's fault. There's never a look at what boys/ men are doing wrong that are setting them back. It's never that maybe, they're just not stepping up to the plate of the modern world.

Keep in mind that there was time when women couldn't open a bank account on their own, when divorcing meant financial disaster, when having kids meant that they had to give up their career whether they wanted or not, where discrimination against women in the workplace was tolerated and borderline encouraged . I could go on, yet they were still women doing amazing things despite all the outward challenges. I'm sorry but as far as I can see, the modern "challenges" of men don't even come close to the above. And to be honest, to this days there are still industries that are not kind to women such as finance/ banking, and in any industries being a white men is definitely an advantage.

In regard to work/ career, I work in the corporate world with a decent enough position, so when people keep on claiming that women are fast-tracked towards leadership role, I'm always puzzled. Yes, there are programs in certain industries that promote girls/ women to work in those industries but that doesn't make their life easier. The reality is that most of time girls will be ultra serious with their education and laser focused on getting what degrees/ certificate they need while by comparisons a lot of boys their age would rather play video games or watch some guru on youtube. Similarly, at work I've noticed that girls tend to be a lot more assiduous and focused on climbing the ladder. However, hardship is there and gender and race do make things harder. To this day, there's definitely more advantage to disadvantage to being a men in the workplace, and if you have the right colour, you're golden.

Actually, I'll go further, even when you look at teenagers, girls far outperform boys. I've seen that first hand through my nieces and nephews. In all their respective schools, girls are swooping all categories - not because they are favoured, but simply because they work harder and are more focused.

Imo, people should stop using sensational news stories as their way to measure real life.

By the way, something I'll like to add that I've been thinking a lot lately is that the push toward encouraging emotionality in men/ encouraging men to be more in touch with their feelings imo made things worse. It seems it only made them super emotional and prone to wallowing in self-pity.

What should've been encouraged in men is discipline and stoicism, not crying over every little difficulty they encounter aka being in touch with their feelings.

 

[Celestial Marriage]

By the way, something I'll like to add that I've been thinking a lot lately is that the push toward encouraging emotionality in men/ encouraging men to be more in touch with their feelings imo made things worse. It seems it only made them super emotional and prone to wallowing in self-pity.

What should've been encouraged in men is discipline and stoicism, not crying over every little difficulty they encounter aka being in touch with their feelings.

As a math teacher with 10 years of experience my observation is that AI plague affects boys more, because they play video games more than girls. Girls spend a lot of time on tik-tok, messaging and social networks, but boys spend even more time on screens.

More screen time = less ability to concentrate. Therefore it is harder for boys to do hard tasks which can't be done with the help of AI.
It has been the trend for some time that there are more girls in universities than boys. However, being in trade school is a viable career path for boys so it isn't a bad thing by itself.