Feminism is about a 5 year old, thought.

[speedforce131]

There are some bizarre and disturbing (to me) posts in this thread. Power of the patriarchy I suppose.

You are speaking from a point of polarity. Matriarchy/Patriarchy are two sides of polarization. When your thoughts are polarized, you miss the forest for the trees. Instead of looking at it from the standpoint of one side or the other, look at what IS and what ISN'T. For example, women cannot play in the NFL as it currently stands. Is that patriarchy? No. It's natural law and order. Men (esp those who play in the NFL), are much much bigger built and their sheer power will destroy women. This is the way that it is. Let's say that you were to argue FOR women playing in the NFL. You would be going against natural laws and that cannot work because you cannot beat nature.

[Relax]

There are some bizarre and disturbing (to me) posts in this thread. Power of the patriarchy I suppose.

You are speaking from a point of polarity. Matriarchy/Patriarchy are two sides of polarization. When your thoughts are polarized, you miss the forest for the trees. Instead of looking at it from the standpoint of one side or the other, look at what IS and what ISN'T. For example, women cannot play in the NFL as it currently stands. Is that patriarchy? No. It's natural law and order. Men (esp those who play in the NFL), are much much bigger built and their sheer power will destroy women. This is the way that it is. Let's say that you were to argue FOR women playing in the NFL. You would be going against natural laws and that cannot work because you cannot beat nature.

ahahaha!! this is hilarious... here in Australia we have professional women's football and soccer teams receiving coverage/updates on the sports section of the evening news programmes.... and whole matches broadcast regularly and it's increasing in popularity.... no skimpy clothing either

get with the times - for the times are a changin'

[ada]

I think speedforce was not implying that the female body cannot play in sports, but that the male body is more muscular and fitted to play some sports. So there exists a natural difference in how the body is, that is not something bad nor wrong, it just is. For this reason the "femanism" catalyst that we are all expereincing is a good thing because it raises our awareness at the indifference,  If women want to do something that society wasn't acceptable to, then they should. Times should change, this is a good thing. Though the transition is not easy for us.  

[Spaced]

Feminism has nothing to do with women playing in the NFL. It's about basic human rights. Women should be paid the same amount if they are doing the same job as a man. Women should have equal representation in politics and business. Women should not fear for their safety walking down a street alone. This is just scratching the surface.

Often times in a relationship women are expected to do all the housekeeping in addition to having a full-time job for which they are paid less than their male counterparts. Women also have to pay more for hygiene products (the so-called pink tax: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_tax).

Couple that with the fact that more women are far more likely to be murdered by their spouses (an average of 3 women are murdered by an intimate partner every day in the US) and we start to see the bigger picture:

Our society actively disempowers women. They have less access to resources since they make less money and have to spend more on necessities, they have less time as they often have the burden of maintaining the household, they have less representation in politics and the courts which decide laws that affect them and often they have little agency in their own lives as men can use violence to shut them down if they "step out of line."

This isn't even going into the treatment of trans individuals (which is a touchy subject here given the sometimes shockingly conservative attitudes towards gender).

[Relax]

Feminism has nothing to do with women playing in the NFL. It's about basic human rights. Women should be paid the same amount if they are doing the same job as a man. Women should have equal representation in politics and business. Women should not fear for their safety walking down a street alone. This is just scratching the surface.

Often times in a relationship women are expected to do all the housekeeping in addition to having a full-time job for which they are paid less than their male counterparts. Women also have to pay more for hygiene products (the so-called pink tax: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_tax).

Couple that with the fact that more women are far more likely to be murdered by their spouses (an average of 3 women are murdered by an intimate partner every day in the US) and we start to see the bigger picture:

Our society actively disempowers women. They have less access to resources since they make less money and have to spend more on necessities, they have less time as they often have the burden of maintaining the household, they have less representation in politics and the courts which decide laws that affect them and often they have little agency in their own lives as men can use violence to shut them down if they "step out of line."

This isn't even going into the treatment of trans individuals (which is a touchy subject here given the sometimes shockingly conservative attitudes towards gender).

I agree... AND it's about women playing in their own NFL teams

[Cyan]

Thanks for the kind words gemini, that was some coyote

Feminism has nothing to do with women playing in the NFL.

It has, it has with women being present everywhere the men are, no split for gender based teams and nothing of that type. This to me is not opposable, if women want to participate in sports with men, more to them, but we should understand that it wont produce the same results, while some individual athletes for women will be able to play in men NFL and thats nice for them, most wont, so women sports will remain and will have all the sports men have, this is as it should be far as im concerned.

It's about basic human rights. Women should be paid the same amount if they are doing the same job as a man. Women should have equal representation in politics and business. Women should not fear for their safety walking down a street alone. This is just scratching the surface.

It is, but it is a complex issue, women should be paid the same you say, is this across a lifetime or across a worked hour, currently women get paid the same across a lifetime but get paid less for an hour, so which should be better, equal hourly pay and higher lifetime pay or same lifetime wage and lower hourly wage. Becuase the real problem with wage has nothing to do with being paid less, it has to do with men dying 7 years earlier than women and not being around to collect pension to the same number creating a wage gap. So if were really worried about equal wage we need to focus first and before everything else on men dying 7 years earlier and not being able to collect pension which eventually lands both genders in the same wage.

That would be a real mesurable progress if feminism started a wide scale campaign to get attention to men dying sooner, i have yet to see such, i could link research to go along with this but i feel its redundant, lets just go at face value for now.

There is no need for women themselves to be equally represented, what matters is the Issues that women hold dear are taken care of at equal, which they arent, despite the life expetancy error its still, the system, somewhat biased against women in that regard. We dont need 50% women in all political positions and corporations, we need 100% equality, but thats not going to be in the money, thats because slwoly rights increase and older parties need to give up their rights so that the larger newer groups have rights, when we speak of equal representation i always get on me hind legs and wonder which of these equal 5050 groups will give up seats to get children into parliament, and do we give kids 33% of the seats, how about tourists, i think they should also have the right to vote, do we give them 33%? We dont, we get their rights to be represented by working on getting the best representatives, not the gender based ones, i'd prefer good representation instead of children, women, tourist equal seated reprsentation, but thats just me.

People in general should be safe on the street, this issue hits both genders equally and not just women, once again, wont include statistic links becuase it would be hard research and i prefer to keep this one light. We need safe streets, not just safe streets for women, if we make it an issue of women being unsafe we do a giant bear service to society, violence on the street affects both genders and i would say war and violence in general more strongly effects men than women but I could be wrong.

Also im not looking for what was it that a poster called, exciement, im just sharing my view on my homeplace and getting to know people better, i dont see myself as "picking a fight".

Often times in a relationship women are expected to do all the housekeeping in addition to having a full-time job for which they are paid less than their male counterparts. Women also have to pay more for hygiene products (the so-called pink tax: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_tax).

I dont believe in pink tax, it seems more to do with the fact that mens products are simple and womens products are more complex to manufacture due to the larger list of ingridients, could be wrong but that seems to be the case, campaign against it if you wish but I would pick a fight protecting children rather than a pink tax, its up to you though. I would never do all the housework and work at the same time the spouse did nothing, when I was last in a relationship we did turns doing the cooking and housework and it worked wonders.

Couple that with the fact that more women are far more likely to be murdered by their spouses (an average of 3 women are murdered by an intimate partner every day in the US) and we start to see the bigger picture:

This is one of the real issues, partners murdering partners, but i would say that with enough political effort this issue can be overcome so more power to you for fighting it, one of the issues we agree with, it seems to me to be leftover patriarchy in true. Honor killings, one of the details about that is that Finland had virtually no honor killings until we accepted a large percentage of immigrants from muslim regions and now we have honor killings, so is this our patriarchy since patriarchy opposed immigration or is this our matriarchy since matriarchy supported immigration. I would say that matriarchy tends to try to find the strong male that then abuses it, which is one of the cores of my reason why I dont like matriarchy, but thats just me.

Our society actively disempowers women. They have less access to resources since they make less money and have to spend more on necessities, they have less time as they often have the burden of maintaining the household, they have less representation in politics and the courts which decide laws that affect them and often they have little agency in their own lives as men can use violence to shut them down if they "step out of line."

Everything you said applies more so to children than women, what are we doing about that, giving children the right to vote, would most matriarchists be willing to give up their seats to give to male children. Still, point stands. This is a fight you should win eventually, but try to keep knowledge in mind that men are also opressed in many fields so for every victory you gain you need to think of how to placate your "enemy". In the words of Bismark, it is good not to do every evil on your enemy lest they in the future become your friends.

This isn't even going into the treatment of trans individuals (which is a touchy subject here given the sometimes shockingly conservative attitudes towards gender).

I would say both genders mistreat trans people strongly and this is an equal fight for both, not one or the other.

In short, we agree on most points but I'd like you to keep in mind that not all men are the oppressor and men are also oppressed by women, that way you'll have more grounding in the male community for your fight, but its up to you if you want allies or not, most feminist dont like male allies for obvious reasons which to me is a bad sign for the community.

I just wish we put this much effort into emancipating our children and giving them full rights, the whole thing seems more than a bit hypocritical when children are abused the way they are.

I was in a pizza hut earlier and saw a man slap his daughter, almost got up and started shouting but im in a strange culture so I refrained. If he slapped his wife like that he would have had the cops called on him, in Finland, they would have called the child protective services immediately, so theres food for thought.

[Cyan]

In short, to the equal pay.

Should we pay same hourly wage and demand women retire 7 years later?

[Jade]

Let's take a look at what Q'uo has to say, shall we?

Cited from: http://llresearch.org/transcripts/issues..._0204.aspx

The question:

In our world today there is a strong bias towards the male polarity. In many religions the Creator is spoken of as being male, and in the English language it is common to use what is called the “male generic,” which is the use of masculine language to refer to both men and women. There is a male, or androcentric [1] bias in society where men are seen as the norm, and women as the other, resulting in discrimination and injustice.

Our question is whether we can expect to see this condition change to a more balanced use of language and status in egalitarian society, as we move further into physical fourth density. Will it come about naturally as paradigms change, or is it something that will require a more active approach?

The question appears a bit loaded and Jim/Q'uo address that.

We would pause for a moment in order to include our usual favor, which is to ask each to use personal discrimination in evaluating all of our information. Take that which is helpful, leave behind that which is not. This instrument was somewhat in, shall we say, a hurry to move forward with the opening message. Therefore, we shall continue as we had begun. This instrument has difficulty and doubts within its own mind concerning its ability to transmit accurate information this afternoon, for it has its own opinion about the topic under discussion. We have recommended to this instrument to simply let all other thoughts drop by the way for the moment, and to speak that which we give him, without attempting to cover it in any way whatsoever.

Q'uo mentions that this is a fundamental part of our current experience.

By this time upon your spiritual journey, you have been able to make certain tentatively arrived-at conclusions that give you a base upon which to stand so that you do not face a constant barrage of uncertainty in your daily round of activities, and yet the query which you asked about in this day is one which is fundamental in your experience. For indeed, there is no polarity in the ultimate sense, for all are one being, all are the Creator. In the illusion of separation, all of the Creation may be seen as a distortion of this One Creator.

Here Q'uo talks about the archetypical bias there is in seeing the "reaching/taking" (male) principle as more valuable than the "magnetic/receiving" (female) principle.

Life upon your Earth then, is the result of the male and female principles interacting. The male and female genders within your third-density illusion reproduce much of these principles of the male and the female, the positive and the negative, the radiant and the magnetic. We however must suggest that, as so much of your illusion is distorted in its representations of the ultimate reality, this is oftentimes an unavoidable distortion, for again, you do not perceive clearly the reality about you, and oftentimes the reality within you, so that the principle of the male and the female is represented in the biological genders becomes reason for, shall we say, discrimination, favoring of one over the other, so that there is not the equal sharing of the creation of the One Creator, but there is the use of the strength of the biological male of the physical sense, to take that which it wishes, and to leave behind that which it does not wish for others.

Q'uo says that all of us who are incarnate must deal with this imbalance, because it is so pervasive, and that part of the path of the male gender is learning humility in the face of imperviousness.

This is part of the illusion in which you exist. It is part of the catalyst which each entity, both male and female genders must deal. For though it seems that it is most obvious that the biological female is the loser in this equation, we must suggest that there is also another loser if we talk in terms of winners and losers. For by being dominant in a physical sense and taking more than what is its due, the male is given a false sense of superiority which shall eventually lead it in a path which it will discover humility. For that which is not true, in the ultimate sense, will need be balanced in a fashion which may be somewhat difficult for the male gender to appreciate as it sees its efforts becoming less and less effective in providing the framework for an existence that is beneficial not only to it, to its offspring and its own kind, but which produces the world in which you now live, for there is much of the male arrogance in the cultures that are encroaching upon the planetary wellness and unity of all peoples.

And then  Q'uo says that in general, incarnated males are here to work with the energies of the male principle and incarnated females are here to embody and manifest the energies of the female principle, and this is a choice we make when we incarnate.

In a mind/body/spirit complex which is moving through the densities, and in particular in the third density which you now enjoy, it is a necessary and natural function to experience the polarities of male and female with emphasis lying first in the one and then in the other. The primary mode of this emphasis in incarnational experience is that you find yourself incarnated in a body, expressing the female or the male. But even when that is so, each of you still possesses a side representing the principle of the polarity not expressed in your physical form. Each male is female; each female is male. As you engage in that dance, which is your experience of this life and all of its complexities, you will have shadings of the one polarity and shadings of the other polarity, each calling to the other, each expressing itself in relation to the other in such a large myriad of ways, that it beggars description.

Okay, so here Q'uo says that men are basically mad that women are sneaky liars (the hidden/veiled/female principle), but it's merely a reflection of their own dishonesty.

And we find that there is, in the question that you have asked today, a recognition of a circumstance which we believe to be true—that is to say, upon your planet at this time, there is an insufficient appreciation of the female principle. Now, it happens that insofar as approximately half of the incarnate mind/body/spirit complexes are female, that they have not been without a means of self-expression. And, indeed, this self-expression, we would say from the point of view we occupy, every bit as powerful a force in what is unfolding upon your planet as is its complementary polarity, that being the male. However, the female expression has tended to go, what we might call, “underground.” It has tended to seek expression through means that are somewhat devious because a more honest approach has been denied as a possibility. Now, this deviousness is also found every bit as much in the male, for the male simply is the same as the female in mirror image. It is as dependent upon the female as the female is upon the male. The two belong together inextricably as a portion of the structure of incarnate existence.

Here Q'uo says that basically, the societal and long term subjugation of the female principle has snowballed into a severe distortion in how the female is able to express itself, and further polarizes the separation of the two principles. IMO this thread is guilty of perpetuating this type of energy - saying that we don't want women to express themselves in a certain way (through the concept of feminism).

And so, when a male reaches out in male desire to the female, and the female calls this desire to itself in ways that are not honest, in ways that are not fully open, in ways, that as we say, are subject to the deviousness of third-density manifestations that have not yet risen to the level of the open heart, it is then that greater and greater distortions are possible. To deny the female its proper place is not simply an act of aggrandizement on the part of the male—an act on the part of the male whereby, as it might be said, the male tries to accrue to itself more than its fair share of recognition in its culture, but it is also a denial on the part of the male of an essential part of itself. And when the female calls to the male in such a way as to confine the male to that portion of its being which lacks the female, then the female, too, is denied that portion of itself, which is already male.

These next passages ring in my head often and bring me much comfort. "There is remedial work of a fairly significant nature that must be done" - this means that yes, we must go back to kindergarten to figure this stuff out - BOTH (all) sexes.

And so, if we would discover that a significant portion of the female principle has been thrust out from the center of the pattern of spiritual evolution taking place upon a cultural level, there is remedial work of a fairly significant nature that must be done. And so we would agree that in order to take up a relation to this displaced female energy, that it must be brought back into a place of honor, and that is work which will require a good deal of self-reflection, not only on the part of those males which have been party to its repression, but also upon the part of the females that have learned to live within the framework of that repression.

And this one. Remember, this part is being channeled by Steve, a man who is well into his 60s. Let me tell you what, it feels good to have permission from Q'uo to speak up, in fact, encouragement to speak as loudly as possible. "Sometimes a certain amount of stridency is necessary".

It is a natural expression of this attempt to heal upon a cultural level that those presently embodied in female form might reach out in anger and attempt to claim their rightful place in the center in a way that can seem strident. Sometimes a certain amount of stridency is necessary in order to capture the attention of one who is, shall we say, asleep to a problem, who is not aware of the nature of the problem, of the scope of the problem, of the reach of that problem.

And so, there will be friction that one might legitimately anticipate as the female principle—in the persons of incarnate female individuals—wishes to announce that it cannot continue to be pushed to the margins, and that a balanced configuration of the social complex requires a greater integration of its female portion.

So yeah. What we label as "feminism" is directly a necessary part of healing the planetary energies, and the fact that men are bothered by it is also just the way it's going to be, until they decide to go forward and work with integrating the female principle in a sincere way.

These are, what you might call, wounds to be healed, so to speak, insofar as they are not welcomed as conditions that wish to be retained and sharpened, but rather are conditions that your men and your women are attempting to surpass. We have suggested that the attempt may, indeed, involve some friction. The attempt may, indeed, involve an over-expression of frustration on the part of the female which has so long been pushed to the margins in your society. An over-expression of this polarity may, indeed, be a legitimate portion of an effort to achieve balance, and it is well for those currently incarnate as males to appreciate the significance of this effort, and perhaps to be a little forgiving when those who are incarnated female bodies feel the need to act out, so to speak, their frustrations.

And here Q'uo concludes that working with these energies, bringing the female principle back into a respected place, is a required and "essential" part of our entrance into fourth density.

The key to healing, the key to bringing into balance the two dimensions which are essential to your process of evolution at this time is acceptance. This acceptance must begin precisely where it currently finds itself, and that is, you first of all must accept that there is an imbalance, and you must allow that imbalance its sway long enough to begin to love that energy which has felt itself to be pushed out from its center. To reject that energy in its current configuration is merely to create a circumstance in which action will continue to play upon reaction and no genuine healing will be able to take place. And yet, we would say that the commitment to healing will yield, little by little, a greater integration, and the greater the integration, the less one of the polarities will be pushed to the periphery, the more it will be brought in to the center. And the more that does happen, the more the distortions that have come to characterize your relations between the sexes will, indeed, begin to fall away.

We will tell you that there will be no passage into fourth density until this work has been, to a large extent, done. That the doing of this work is essential to this passage, and the repair of the dysfunctions in the relations among the sexes is central to the integration of the social energy complex which governs your planet at this time, and which, in seeking its integration, seeks the first entry into a possibility it has not yet realized, which is to say, that it shall evolve into what we have called a social memory complex.

The development of that complex will be the work of fourth density. You presently stand at the entrance to that density, but there is work to be done, and we feel that in your question today, you have managed to put your finger on an essential element of that work, which suggests to us that you are very much about that work at this time. You would not have been able to identify with such clarity the nature of the problem had you not already been working on that problem for some time and at some depth. So we commend you to that effort and we would say that we have seen signs of a lessening of distortions and a beginning of a greater integration which shows promise.

Again, there is an archetypical message and theme that runs through our whole experience as a planetary entity. The female principle (subconscious mind) has been suppressed and ignored, while the male principle (conscious mind/will) has been favored and celebrated. This is wholly imbalanced because it is the interaction of the two that creates, but this is literally the function of the veil: to hide the "female" principle so that the "male" principle must deliberately seek and find her. And in fact, court her. When people handwave "feminism" away as if it's some inconvenience or gross misunderstanding, they are continuing to perpetuate the subjugation of the female principle.

So forgive me for my stridency, but we really do need to go back to kindergarten on this one. This isn't about equal wages, who cares for the children, or who gets to play in the NFL (lol). It's much greater than that.

But, as were are now here, and my post is over 2,000 words already, here is a short anecdote. We all know what the men in the NFL make - does anyone know what cheerleaders in the NFL make? I do. Most of them make around $2,000 salary in a year. These are also elite athletes at the top of their sport who spend a lot of time off the field doing charity work and promoting the team. But it's considered a "privilege" to be a cheerleader and also just an entry gig into a potentially more lucrative "modeling" or "acting" career - which of course, as a woman, these types of lucrative careers have a very strict age limit. This type of pay discrepancy wouldn't be the case if it wasn't so thoroughly normalized to see female roles as worth less than male roles. It's also a "privilege" to get to play for a top NFL team, but you don't see any men volunteering to play for the Packers for "exposure" and a small stipend, with the hope that if they're good enough they can earn the "big" product endorsement gigs. I'm sure there are men who would be willing to, in fact, but it isn't even considered as an option.

[speedforce131]

I think speedforce was not implying that the female body cannot play in sports, but that the male body is more muscular and fitted to play some sports. So there exists a natural difference in how the body is, that is not something bad nor wrong, it just is. For this reason the "femanism" catalyst that we are all expereincing is a good thing because it raises our awareness at the indifference,  If women want to do something that society wasn't acceptable to, then they should. Times should change, this is a good thing. Though the transition is not easy for us.  

Correct. I used the example of the NFL in that men would theoretically play with women so as to demonstrate that due to nature, it is not possible without a lot of harm to women.

Point I'm trying to make is that modern feminism is less about equal rights and more so about wanting to be men & doing what men do, even among men because the belief that women are equal is THAT strong. First let's get this out of the way. Men and women are NOT equal. We CAN be equal in some respects but we are not the same. From a nature perspective, that's sort of the point. Men need women and women need men. Our physiology comes together doesn't it? In more ways then one. THAT, is where the lesson of unity and love is contained.

[Merrick]

There are some bizarre and disturbing (to me) posts in this thread. Power of the patriarchy I suppose.

You are speaking from a point of polarity. Matriarchy/Patriarchy are two sides of polarization. When your thoughts are polarized, you miss the forest for the trees. Instead of looking at it from the standpoint of one side or the other, look at what IS and what ISN'T. For example, women cannot play in the NFL as it currently stands. Is that patriarchy? No. It's natural law and order. Men (esp those who play in the NFL), are much much bigger built and their sheer power will destroy women. This is the way that it is. Let's say that you were to argue FOR women playing in the NFL. You would be going against natural laws and that cannot work because you cannot beat nature.

This posts confuses me significantly. Are you saying that it’s a natural “law” that men have more mass and upper body strength than women? While that may feel true, there is a huge range of human body types and capabilities, and there are absolutely women who have more body mass and upper body strength than the average man. There are men who have less body mass and strength than the average woman. And exercise/training/diet can make major changes to a given person’s body, so it’s not like a person can only ever be at X mass or Y body strength.

As for the NFL, what is natural about it? It’s a human designed game and could easily be redesigned to not favor a certain body type.

Human men and human women show a slight sexual dimorphism that is insignificant compared to some of our cousins, such as gorillas or orangutans. The fact of that slight sexual dimorphism does not translate or correlate to a specific social structure.

When I speak of patriarchy, I’m talking about a social system that favors men. This exists currently in the United States and in many other parts of the world. This is a social phenomenon and it is not polarizing for me to identify what it is, beyond the fact that I’m making a distinction of any kind which ultimately in the absolute sense is not distinct, but in the relative sense that we experience is very real and present.

We all suffer from distortions, and some of these distortions either help our soul evolve or hinder it. IMO ideas that enforce patriarchy as it exists in the United States hinder soul evolution, as the patriarchy actively harms millions of women. I am making a deliberate choice to stand with women and be an ally in pushing back against the patriarchy because I feel that this helps women and is an aspect of my STO orientation.

Edit: And in the time it took me to post this, we got some very salient Qu’otes that say men do need to find a way to balance and integrate female energies in order for our souls to evolve. Thank you Jade!

[speedforce131]

Women should be paid the same amount if they are doing the same job as a man. Women should have equal representation in politics and business.

I agree in general however also keep in mind that most women do not do the same jobs as men (fishermen, oil rigs, sewage, other extreme hazardous stuff, etc). I agree about politics & business however I also question how many women SEEK to become politicians and businesswomen? You need a lot in order to make it more visible.

Women should not fear for their safety walking down a street alone.

I agree with you but this is not a feminism issue. It is a cultural/societal one. Reason why I say this is because in Asia, like Japan for example, it's entirely safe to walk down the street at night by herself.

Often times in a relationship women are expected to do all the housekeeping in addition to having a full-time job for which they are paid less than their male counterparts.

This is also another cultural issue and I sympathize. However it also speaks to the true inequality present within the male and female genders. In the past, women would stay home while the men earn the money. This arrangement freed up so much time that women had all the time needed in order to do the housekeeping. It's actually been this way for most of planet Earth's history. The one thing introduced to women that changed all that was working (in the workplace). This change has done a big number on families, to the point that family units are a rarity now.

Our society actively disempowers women.

I agree with you. The vast majority of female billionaires are actually in China. Because in China, the belief is that "women hold up half the sky". First female presidents have been in Asia. It's entirely possible to get to the point where society empowers women rather than the other way around.

This isn't even going into the treatment of trans individuals (which is a touchy subject here given the sometimes shockingly conservative attitudes towards gender).

Trans people are mentally ill. It should be treated as a mental illness instead of allowing the individual to play on their illness. Remember that which is natural and that which is not. We only have two genders. Nature even backs me up on this as we only have XX or XY chromosomes.

[speedforce131]

Okay, so here Q'uo says that men are basically mad that women are sneaky liars (the hidden/veiled/female principle), but it's merely a reflection of their own dishonesty.

That's not what that means at all.

But, as were are now here, and my post is over 2,000 words already, here is a short anecdote. We all know what the men in the NFL make - does anyone know what cheerleaders in the NFL make? I do. Most of them make around $2,000 salary in a year.

What's the point? People pay to go see the players play football. That's why they make as much as they do. I'm not sure why cheerleaders are paid so little, perhaps there's a reason for that? I'd have to do some research. But either way, it is not fair to pay cheerleaders multi-millions on the same level as NFL players when they're not even playing the game people are paying to see. The whole problem with the gender issue is that you seek equality when there is none. Nature dictates that we are not equal. Instead of seeking equality, we should seek harmony.

[Merrick]

I didn’t see Jade advocating that cheerleaders be paid multi-millions.

[Jade]

Okay, so here Q'uo says that men are basically mad that women are sneaky liars (the hidden/veiled/female principle), but it's merely a reflection of their own dishonesty.

That's not what that means at all.

Maybe I was a bit glib, but what is your interpretation of the passage?

But, as were are now here, and my post is over 2,000 words already, here is a short anecdote. We all know what the men in the NFL make - does anyone know what cheerleaders in the NFL make? I do. Most of them make around $2,000 salary in a year.

What's the point? People pay to go see the players play football. That's why they make as much as they do. I'm not sure why cheerleaders are paid so little, perhaps there's a reason for that? I'd have to do some research. But either way, it is not fair to pay cheerleaders multi-millions on the same level as NFL players when they're not even playing the game people are paying to see. The whole problem with the gender issue is that you seek equality when there is none. Nature dictates that we are not equal. Instead of seeking equality, we should seek harmony.

Why are you so fixated on this impossible equality that nobody is even advocating for? What I want, as a "feminist female", is for men to sincerely recognize the explicit limitations that have been specifically placed upon women throughout most of societal experience, and maybe attempt to address and rectify them. Q'uo validates that this is the natural, archetypical experience of a veiled third density, and even Ra says that *restitution* manifested in the physical third density is a necessary part of the planetary healing.

26.30 ▶ Questioner: And then, can you describe the mechanism of the planetary healing?

Ra: I am Ra. Healing is a process of acceptance, forgiveness, and, if possible, restitution. The restitution not being available in time/space, there are many among your peoples now attempting restitution while in the physical.

My point about the cheerleaders is that the reason they are paid less is because they are valued so much thoroughly less. They're literally not even paid a minimum wage but the male athletes enter into the upper echelons of wealth. The female role is still seen as desired/necessary (or they wouldn't be there), yet it is severely undervalued, and that is apparent by the EXTREME pay discrepancy between these elite athletes.

You say that feminism is about "women wanting to do what men do" but this is a complete misinterpretation, I assure you. One facet, sure, is that women want to be allowed to do things that they have been specifically excluded from for no reason other than not having a penis - luckily we have gained some of those rights, like being able to work, and being able to vote. Men have treated women as the "weaker sex" for a very long time, and this is not even true. I'm an extremely average sized woman, but I also do physical labor for my job - which is not the case for a lot of men these days - and I bet I have more upper body strength and general stamina than lots of men. The actual physical differences are extremely minute, as mentioned by Merrick. Women just want to not be patronized by men who see them as weak or inferior for whatever reason - this is a confusion of values. The strengths that women have by their very nature have been completely taken advantage of or just unrecognized. Women want their fight for rights and recognition to be seen as more than just wanting to play football or work on an oil rig. These are absolute strawmen that attempt to make women look ridiculous for even trying to speak up.

There is a pervasive meme that we couldn't have a female president because she would be "too emotional". But I want you to go take a look at our current president's twitter feed and tell me that that man has any emotional stability whatsoever. It's insidious cultural beliefs like this that feminism wants to eradicate. In fact, being "emotional" isn't even a negative trait! The fact that we project it as a negative trait is, again, a subjugation of the female principle.

The male is female and the female is male. We are biased towards one side. It's about bringing the other side into balance. "Physical limitations" are such a third density box. We are all capable of so much more than we allow ourselves to consider. It's possible for a mother to lift a car to save her child that is pinned beneath it, this has nothing to do with bone length or muscle density. And yet when I do a google about this phenomenon, it brings me to a wikipedia page titled "hysterical strength". "Hysteria" comes from the Greek word for "womb", implying that any emotional instability that is problematic comes from those who are of female body. We don't usually refer to men as "hysterical" - the word is a dog whistle for misogyny. So yeah. We have some seriously insidious problems in our society, and many of them can be alleviated with a much more enlightened view on "gender equality".

No, men and women are not equal. Men will never be able to bear children and continue the perpetuation of the species. Men are already genetically and functionally obsolete. Sure they've got the big muscles and can throw footballs really far, but we have enough stored semen, as well as cloning capabilities that don't require semen. I know on a subconscious level there is a strong reaction to this usurping of the power dynamic, but the tide must turn in a very big way before we can make it to fourth density, which is a receptive/female principled type of energy. Until we can truly understand and respect it, we're just gonna keep pushing 4th density further down the line.

[Cainite]

I'm against both sexes, period.

[speedforce131]

Maybe I was a bit glib, but what is your interpenetration of the passage?

In a mind/body/spirit complex which is moving through the densities, and in particular in the third density which you now enjoy, it is a necessary and natural function to experience the polarities of male and female with emphasis lying first in the one and then in the other. The primary mode of this emphasis in incarnational experience is that you find yourself incarnated in a body, expressing the female or the male. But even when that is so, each of you still possesses a side representing the principle of the polarity not expressed in your physical form. Each male is female; each female is male. As you engage in that dance, which is your experience of this life and all of its complexities, you will have shadings of the one polarity and shadings of the other polarity, each calling to the other, each expressing itself in relation to the other in such a large myriad of ways, that it beggars description.

When you are incarnated, you become either male or female. You express the polarity which you were born into. Male if you are male, female if you are female. The spirit has both polarities, male and female. One side is not expressed due to the incarnational experience. Has nothing to do with men lying. Men and women can experience the other polarity and it is a challenge to do so. For me, it's been a walk in the park. You are looking at the ONLY Asian male that watches Hallmark movies, mostly Christmas movies though. Either way, the idea is to achieve a balance. If you are male, then it is beneficial to tap into the female qualities and if you are female then vice versa. It makes you more whole as a person and less polarized. We are still the genders that we were born as, and so it is not needed to become a manly female, or a feminine man. Only that you tap into those qualities that's within you but not you as your physical gender.

My point about the cheerleaders is that the reason they are paid less is because they are valued so much thoroughly less. The female role is still seen as desired/necessary (or they wouldn't be there), yet it is severely undervalued, and that is apparent by the EXTREME pay discrepancy between these elite athletes.

But WHY are they valued less? Could it be because they are not playing football? The game that everyone paid to see? How often does the cheerleader perform for the entire crowd? How many hours does she work this performance?

You say that feminism is about "women wanting to do what men do" but this is a complete misinterpretation, I assure you.

The modern interpretation of feminism is currently about wanting to do what men do. Such as being in the police force, the military, etc. The media currently pushes this narrative. Everything that they promote in feminism is about the antithesis of natural law and order. They do not want harmony, because the answers to those are simple. They want maximal division. Service to self so that others may appreciate service to other selves.

There is a pervasive meme that we couldn't have a female president because she would be "too emotional".

To a certain extent they'd be right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Geun-hye
Because Park inherited strong regional and generational support from her father, as well as the legacy of his economic success, Park's opponents used her father as criticism against her.

Not only did she manipulate others, but others manipulated her. Her emotions got the better of her.

Men are already genetically and functionally obsolete.

This is HIGHLY, HIGHLY NEGATIVELY polarized and separation from others. This is NOT what the Law of One teaches us. Like it or not, men built this world and without men, you would not have a world to live in. I'd like to see you go out there and build those skyscrapers, build those roads, those freeways, the cars that you enjoy driving in, the fish and other meat that you enjoy eating.

[Jade]

Maybe I was a bit glib, but what is your interpenetration of the passage?

In a mind/body/spirit complex which is moving through the densities, and in particular in the third density which you now enjoy, it is a necessary and natural function to experience the polarities of male and female with emphasis lying first in the one and then in the other. The primary mode of this emphasis in incarnational experience is that you find yourself incarnated in a body, expressing the female or the male. But even when that is so, each of you still possesses a side representing the principle of the polarity not expressed in your physical form. Each male is female; each female is male. As you engage in that dance, which is your experience of this life and all of its complexities, you will have shadings of the one polarity and shadings of the other polarity, each calling to the other, each expressing itself in relation to the other in such a large myriad of ways, that it beggars description.

When you are incarnated, you become either male or female. You express the polarity which you were born into. Male if you are male, female if you are female. The spirit has both polarities, male and female. One side is not expressed due to the incarnational experience. Has nothing to do with men lying. Men and women can experience the other polarity and it is a challenge to do so. For me, it's been a walk in the park. You are looking at the ONLY Asian male that watches Hallmark movies, mostly Christmas movies though. Either way, the idea is to achieve a balance. If you are male, then it is beneficial to tap into the female qualities and if you are female then vice versa. It makes you more whole as a person and less polarized. We are still the genders that we were born as, and so it is not needed to become a manly female, or a feminine man. Only that you tap into those qualities that's within you but not you as your physical gender. 

Okay, we can disagree on this one.
 

My point about the cheerleaders is that the reason they are paid less is because they are valued so much thoroughly less. The female role is still seen as desired/necessary (or they wouldn't be there), yet it is severely undervalued, and that is apparent by the EXTREME pay discrepancy between these elite athletes.

But WHY are they valued less? Could it be because they are not playing football? The game that everyone paid to see? How often does the cheerleader perform for the entire crowd? How many hours does she work this performance?

I assure you they do just as much physical conditioning, if not more, than the male athletes. I already told you why they aren't paid as much. They aren't valued, and additionally, women who are "pretty" are encouraged to be dependent on men financially.

You say that feminism is about "women wanting to do what men do" but this is a complete misinterpretation, I assure you.

The modern interpretation of feminism is currently about wanting to do what men do. Such as being in the police force, the military, etc. The media currently pushes this narrative. Everything that they promote in feminism is about the antithesis of natural law and order. They do not want harmony, because the answers to those are simple. They want maximal division. Service to self so that others may appreciate service to other selves.

This are some pretty absolute statements, I don't see women as creating division or usurping natural order. What's wrong with women wanting to be police officers? Are you afraid that they will sully the good reputation and upstanding moral lens through which we currently see our benevolent police force?

There is a pervasive meme that we couldn't have a female president because she would be "too emotional".

To a certain extent they'd be right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Geun-hye
Because Park inherited strong regional and generational support from her father, as well as the legacy of his economic success, Park's opponents used her father as criticism against her.

Not only did she manipulate others, but others manipulated her. Her emotions got the better of her.

Okay? So one example of one woman in power? You think men haven't manipulated others or been manipulated by their own emotions? Come on, this seems extremely disingenuous.

Men are already genetically and functionally obsolete.

This is HIGHLY, HIGHLY NEGATIVELY polarized and separation from others. This is NOT what the Law of One teaches us. Like it or not, men built this world and without men, you would not have a world to live in. I'd like to see you go out there and build those skyscrapers, build those roads, those freeways, the cars that you enjoy driving in, the fish and other meat that you enjoy eating.

I'm sincerely sorry to offend you, but I don't see how stating biological fact is negatively polarized. I wasn't the first one to bring up the "physical differences make us innately unequal" argument. I'm just saying that the amount of value we put on the genders should go both ways, even if the things we manifest as genders are different. Sure I'd miss all these neat toys that "men" have built, but without my mom carrying me inside of her for 9 months and nursing me at her breast, I literally wouldn't be here at all.

I am not saying I want to get rid of men. Hardly. I love men. I understand men have challenges with being oppressed in our society just like women do. But many of those challenges are also a symptom of patriarchy - one of the biggest insults you can give to a man is to call him one of the many derogatory words we have to accuse men of being feminine. Why? Because being "woman-like" is seen as "lesser than". Why?


As a balance to my seemingly polarized opinion here, this is a thread I made with another facet of my opinion on the separation of the male principle from the female principle, and the ways that it is used to oppress men:

https://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthre...?tid=14270

[speedforce131]

Okay, we can disagree on this one.

There is nothing to disagree on. My interpretation is 100% correct. Think about it. Think about what I said, vs your interpretation that painted men as LIARS. That's NEGATIVE, SEPARATION, SERVICE-TO-SELF.

I assure you they do just as much physical conditioning, if not more, than the male athletes. I already told you why they aren't paid as much. They aren't valued, and additionally, women who are "pretty" are encouraged to be dependent on men financially.

You can argue that they are not paid enough and maybe that's true. But in no way do they deserve equal pay to the players who are actually there for the entire game and are gruelly performing for that length of time. The players are there to play football which the people paid to see. They didn't pay to see cheerleaders. They paid to see football. Cheerleaders are part of the experience but not the main part.

This are some pretty absolute statements, I don't see women as creating division or usurping natural order.

But that's exactly what's been done. There has to be a balance seeking fair treatment so as to achieve harmony. The problem is that current feminism promotes division and usurping natural order. Your comments allude to such.

What's wrong with women wanting to be police officers?

A part of the job with being a police officer is dealing with conflict. That conflict can and does involve men. When a bigger and faster man is involved, the female is at a disadvantage. Therefore the job cannot be performed to the level that is required. If the guy gets away and/or the female officer gets hurt, that's directly because of gender differences.

I'm sincerely sorry to offend you, but I don't see how stating biological fact is negatively polarized.

That is NOT biological fact. Saying that men are obsolete, both genetically and functionally is extremely negatively service to self polarized. It promotes separation and does not see the other as creator. You are playing into polarity which is characteristic of 3rd density. I can see why on a spiritual level but you are wrong.

[Cyan]

Long well thought out and articulated responses, rarely do i get so long responses to my thread that I actualy cant read them, so here is to that, may you all continue to discuss this topic with such calm, its miracelous.

Also on women in nfl:



While its rare to get a woman or a child who can whoop 99% of the mens arses like gloriously, it does still occur and we should always be mindful of that.

[speedforce131]

That's a matter of skill inequality. If you were to pit an equally skilled man, what would the outcome be? The physiological differences would then be apparent. This reality is known among the physical competitions and that's exactly why there are male and female leagues specifically and not combined.

[Jade]

Okay, we can disagree on this one.

There is nothing to disagree on. My interpretation is 100% correct. Think about it. Think about what I said, vs your interpretation that painted men as LIARS. That's NEGATIVE, SEPARATION, SERVICE-TO-SELF.

The quote, and my interpretation, is that both genders are liars. In fact, lying is just one of the big problems we have as a society. Even Ra says so.

[48.7]The patterns of activation of an entity of high seniority will undoubtedly move with some rapidity to the green-ray level which is the springboard to primary blue. There is always some difficulty in penetrating blue primary energy for it requires that which your people have in great paucity; that is, honesty. Blue ray is the ray of free communication with self and with other-self.

I assure you they do just as much physical conditioning, if not more, than the male athletes. I already told you why they aren't paid as much. They aren't valued, and additionally, women who are "pretty" are encouraged to be dependent on men financially.

You can argue that they are not paid enough and maybe that's true. But in no way do they deserve equal pay to the players who are actually there for the entire game and are gruelly performing for that length of time. The players are there to play football which the people paid to see. They didn't pay to see cheerleaders. They paid to see football. Cheerleaders are part of the experience but not the main part.

You see, speedforce, here is a problem. You agree with me, but you don't want to agree with me so you create a strawman. I never ever once even implied that cheerleaders should be paid millions of dollars. If anything I argued that football players should earn a salary closer to cheerleaders. I honestly don't believe anyone deserves those kind of wages, so I would literally never argue that anyone deserves a million dollar salary, but that's a whole nother argument that I'm not getting into here.

What's wrong with women wanting to be police officers?

A part of the job with being a police officer is dealing with conflict. That conflict can and does involve men. When a bigger and faster man is involved, the female is at a disadvantage. Therefore the job cannot be performed to the level that is required. If the guy gets away and/or the female officer gets hurt, that's directly because of gender differences.

Modern day cops do not use their innate physical strength to enact force on others, they use guns and other weaponry. This is why, so often that if someone creates a physical confrontation, they get shot. Cops do not trust in their own bodily strength. Also, did you know that if you score too high on the IQ test, that you aren't allowed into the police academy? Anyway, I think this is a strange argument. Again, I'd rather we just got rid of the whole corrupt institution instead of making statements like this...

I'm sincerely sorry to offend you, but I don't see how stating biological fact is negatively polarized.

That is NOT biological fact. Saying that men are obsolete, both genetically and functionally is extremely negatively service to self polarized. It promotes separation and does not see the other as creator. You are playing into polarity which is characteristic of 3rd density. I can see why on a spiritual level but you are wrong.

You are confused. There is a difference between stating a biological fact, and using that biological fact to oppress someone, like what happens with women, even in this thread. In fact, it's quite the opposite - I'm using that biological fact to have sympathy for men. I'm sorry that you cannot see my genuine compassion for the experience of those who are incarnate males. Third density is super hard and confusing, and we all struggle. I really take a lot of stuff Q'uo says to heart, and honestly, if it wasn't for that channeling I posted earlier, I probably wouldn't have even replied to this thread. I just would have sadly retreated to the shadows, as is what I have been trained to do as a female. But Q'uo says that "stridency is necessary", and I see a lot of remedial thinking in this thread regarding how to define gender polarity. I'm just trying to share my point of view, as a female, with recognition that I have to step into that space and claim it. I'm not saying my perspective is perfectly balanced or even entirely correct. I'm just trying to correct what I perceive as the obvious distortions in certain lines of thinking that are pervasive, and that activate wounds that resonate within me on a deep level. Also, the female representation on this board has always been extremely lacking, so someone has to come in here and hysteria-it-up to bring balance to all of this grounded male logic.

[Cyan]

Actually, male motorcycle police are expected to be able to lift their bike back up if they fall and female are not, this is one example of blatant matriarchy causing danger to the community. The females cant do it, too weak, males can. That kind of matriarchy has no place in a civilized society, placing others in danger to compensate for being physically weaker.

[speedforce131]

The quote, and my interpretation, is that both genders are liars. In fact, lying is just one of the big problems we have as a society. Even Ra says so.

Please do not distort the Confederation's teachings. Especially with a negative connotation. The interpretation is objectively incorrect. As spirit, we comprise of both male and female polarities. However only one can manifest, and so the other polarity is within you and not overt. But as it is within you, it can be tapped into and utilized (and SHOULD be utilized). Has absolutely nothing to do with lying or deception. Lying in this context means that it is laid somewhere. A matter of position.

lie
3. (of a place) be situated in a specified position or direction.

I assure you they do just as much physical conditioning, if not more, than the male athletes.

This is objectively false.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/adventu...4/4212171/

But a DB's mass combined with his speed -- on average, 4.56 seconds for the 40-yard dash -- can produce up to 1600 pounds of tackling force, according to Timothy Gay, a physics professor at the University of Nebraska and author of The Physics of Football.

These players weigh 300+ pounds. This guy for example (to the right)
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/0H_ZyU1H5AI/maxresdefault.jpg

The physical condition is such that not only can they exert that amount of power, but they also have to ABSORB that level of force as well. They have to have an endurance that allows them to do these things for the entire length of the game.

Modern day cops do not use their innate physical strength to enact force on others, they use guns and other weaponry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLFDYPfIw2Q

You cannot use weapons on someone unless the situation calls for it. So if the male offender has only his hands and feet, the officer must use equal force. Typically this means they need to use hand to hand techniques, force, and their batons.

[Cyan]

Since we touched on the topic of transpeople, here is a transwoman playing a male dominated game and absolutely pwning it

[speedforce131]

Of course. That person was born male and still contains the male polarity. That person is simply expressing the female polarity as a part of the physical, social and general beingness. The female polarity being expressed more dominantly. The male polarity still being present in that they still have the "killer instinct", that competitive nature about them.

[Jade]

Okay, I'm really struggling to break through your extremely black and white thinking. Since when is physical prowess purely about brute force? Not all the men on the NFL team are 300lb+ monsters that absorb hits. Agility is important. What about dexterity? The team would fall apart without players with these traits, and these are the types of traits that cheerleaders also possess. Anyway, again, this is such a strawman. Sure, NFL players are the most physically fit athletes basically. What about baseball players? They absolutely do not do the same type of conditioning that football players do, most of them sit around for 95% of the game doing nothing. Less people watch baseball. Yet there is no salary cap, so the highest paid NFL players make a fraction of the highest paid baseball players. So there is no relativity in this, I was just using it as an example that I thought would be difficult to argue against. I see that I was wrong.

Actually, male motorcycle police are expected to be able to lift their bike back up if they fall and female are not, this is one example of blatant matriarchy causing danger to the community. The females cant do it, too weak, males can. That kind of matriarchy has no place in a civilized society, placing others in danger to compensate for being physically weaker.

Again, the idea that feminism/"the matriarchy" is about women wanting to do the same jobs to earn wages as men do is a huge strawman. This is a distraction and a misunderstanding. In fact, if I reply to this thread further I'm not going to be paying attention to these types of statements anymore, just as a heads up. I know this is remedial work, and I'm trying to be patient here, but we can't carry on a discussion if you aren't actually reading my posts.

[Cyan]

Okay, I'm really struggling to break through your extremely black and white thinking. Since when is physical prowess purely about brute force? Not all the men on the NFL team are 300lb+ monsters that absorb hits. Agility is important. What about dexterity? The team would fall apart without players with these traits, and these are the types of traits that cheerleaders also possess. Anyway, again, this is such a strawman. Sure, NFL players are the most physically fit athletes basically. What about baseball players? They absolutely do not do the same type of conditioning that football players do, most of them sit around for 95% of the game doing nothing. Less people watch baseball. Yet there is no salary cap, so the highest paid NFL players make a fraction of the highest paid baseball players. So there is no relativity in this, I was just using it as an example that I thought would be difficult to argue against. I see that I was wrong.

Actually, male motorcycle police are expected to be able to lift their bike back up if they fall and female are not, this is one example of blatant matriarchy causing danger to the community. The females cant do it, too weak, males can. That kind of matriarchy has no place in a civilized society, placing others in danger to compensate for being physically weaker.

Again, the idea that feminism/"the matriarchy" is about women wanting to do the same jobs to earn wages as men do is a huge strawman. This is a distraction and a misunderstanding. In fact, if I reply to this thread further I'm not going to be paying attention to these types of statements anymore, just as a heads up. I know this is remedial work, and I'm trying to be patient here, but we can't carry on a discussion if you aren't actually reading my posts.

Okay, if you feel its a good choice.

[Merrick]

Jade you have incredible patience, and I agree with everything you’ve said. I appreciate you speaking out so eloquently and vehemently, especially in the face of the extreme distortions you’re trying to dispel. I mean, women being cops is against natural law?? How does one even respond to such a notion?

[speedforce131]

Okay, I'm really struggling to break through your extremely black and white thinking.

That which is, and that which isn't.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=NIV

Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”

http://www.llresearch.org/transcripts/is..._0328.aspx

The nature of polarity is such that it echoes to the very fabric of your third-density illusion. Each of you is able to name many dynamic opposites: light and dark, good and evil, warm and cold, wet and dry, and so forth. The very fabric of your existence has the overarching glyph of the Star of David, that figure which is made up of the up-thrusting male principle in its delta form and the downward-pointing pyramid of the female principle. As they come together and merge, so [they form] the Star of David.

There are ways to look at the male and female of the illusion, the attributes given to the female side and the attributes given to the male side of the so-called Tree of Life, and then those androgynous energies which are in the middle of that figure, lending coherence and relationship to the whole. And you are creatures of the Star of David and the Tree of Life. You are walking matrices which are able to juxtapose and merge the physical and the metaphysical, the outer and the inner, the temporal and the eternal. Each of you is a walking gateway between two worlds.

100.13 ▶ Questioner: In that case I will ask only one more question and that will be having to do with the sword and the scepter. It would seem that the sword would be the power of the negative adept indicating control over other-selves and the scepter would indicate the power of the positive adept with unity in mind, body, and spirit. However, they seem to be in opposite hands than I would have guessed. Would Ra comment on that?

Ra: I am Ra. These symbols are astrological in origin. The shapes, therefore, may be released from their stricture.

We may note that there is an overriding spiritual environment and protection for the environment of the mind. We may further note that the negatively polarized adept will attempt to fashion that covenant for its own use whereas the positively polarized entity may hold forth that which is exemplified by the astrological sword; that is, light and truth.

[Cyan]

extreme distortions you’re trying to dispel. I mean, women being cops is against natural law?? How does one even respond to such a notion?

I never said that women cops are against natures law, please dont distort.

I said that asking male cops to be able to lift their bike back up if they fall and asking female cops NOT to be able to do that as they dont have the strength is harmful to the community as it puts female bike cops at a significant advantage and supporting lower levels of physical requirement based on sex is what ever you would like to call. But if you feel like you want to thank her for defending against that opinion that is clearly in your right to do so, but please, dont put words in my mouth, i have nothing against female motocycle cops, but they must be demanded to the same standard as men for the good of the community.

In short, please dont put words in my mouth, thank you.