Feminism is about a 5 year old, thought.

[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