According to the ultimate divine source of morality, internet user Pro Memoria.
Why is Feminism much worse than Cancer nowadays that is caused by women which keeps most men single?
- Thread starter TheVerySeriousTruth
- Start date
Lyfe
Star
- Joined
- May 11, 2020
- Messages
- 3,639
I could say then from a position of morality that your sympathy toward the guilty parties in this regard is indicitive of a lack of morals and would have enough of an argument to contend based off of that that you are in actuality the evil party and not God . You are against God taking life when said lives that were taken imposed a direct and immediate threat to the wellbeing of countless others. You refuse to acknowledge that by taking said lives that the lives of countless others were protected and spared of would be barbarism and savagery. You suggest that those evil cultures should have been allowed to oppress and grieve not only the generations of those times, but future generations as well. God isnt evil for putting an end to evil. Id argue your sympathy and indifference to such evil is evil.
Lyfe
Star
- Joined
- May 11, 2020
- Messages
- 3,639
Ok so then Gods evil for ending evil, but your somehow good when you do it?
Why would u kill those SS officers?
Lyfe
Star
- Joined
- May 11, 2020
- Messages
- 3,639
Every accusation you laid out is from something in the Bible. You must have presumed the Bible is true to do so...
Lyfe
Star
- Joined
- May 11, 2020
- Messages
- 3,639
So then you made bold accusations against things that you dont even know are true?
Daze
Superstar
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2020
- Messages
- 6,848
Aero
Superstar
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2017
- Messages
- 5,910
Can we get back to feminism? If not, this seems like a good time to hype up Gnosticism.
The concept of "Archons" is not well understood. The reality is Archons exist, and their sole purpose is to keep humans from ascending. More importantly, they may take any form. They could be a family member, lover, friend, stranger, or even a famous feminist. The point is the person you thought you knew or existed, in fact, doesn't exist if they are an Archon.
It's unfortunate to put it so bluntly, but some people are empty vessels. Maybe they had a real existence in another dimension; however, they aren't really in this dimension. So they will make any number of things look totally awful. Take a feminist; for example, a feminist Archon will sit there and make feminism look bad to screw with feminists.
The concept of "Archons" is not well understood. The reality is Archons exist, and their sole purpose is to keep humans from ascending. More importantly, they may take any form. They could be a family member, lover, friend, stranger, or even a famous feminist. The point is the person you thought you knew or existed, in fact, doesn't exist if they are an Archon.
It's unfortunate to put it so bluntly, but some people are empty vessels. Maybe they had a real existence in another dimension; however, they aren't really in this dimension. So they will make any number of things look totally awful. Take a feminist; for example, a feminist Archon will sit there and make feminism look bad to screw with feminists.
Postmodern pseudo-Gnosticism of course
Aero
Superstar
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2017
- Messages
- 5,910
Perhaps, but only because Gnosticism is so fragmented.
It's not "fragmented". The only surviving (original) Gnostics are Mandaeans (in Iraq) and Manichaeans (in China).
Everything else is just neo-reconstructionist-revivalism rooted in modern and postmodern paradigms that doesn't go back more than 120 years.
Aero
Superstar
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2017
- Messages
- 5,910
I get the comparison you are making.
I don't remember the exact origin of the Archons in ancient Gnosticism. But I know they aren't emanations of a person, like what I understand Tulpas to be. Archons are an emanation from God or the Demiurge. Or some other Godlike being, put on Earth strictly to test people's spirit. Some Gnostic practitioners might believe Archons are evil, and they certainly seem evil, but they are not evil.
Aero
Superstar
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2017
- Messages
- 5,910
Thanks for the correction, but something minimally surviving sounds like fragmentation to me. It may be more accurate to call it irreparable fragmentation. One cannot put all those pieces back together, and it not being "original" enough for you is irrelevant.
Also, how is ascension a postmodern paradigm? How is the concept of Archons postmodernist in any way? I don't know who you have been reading, but if you read what I wrote, it lines up more with ancient texts than some postmodern ideas.
Aero
Superstar
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2017
- Messages
- 5,910
Lol yes, I remember my last Buddhist lesson. I always liked the concept of the Bodhisattvas.
My interpretation of ascension isn't very peaceful. But I think there are many different paths. Anyway, my main point was that we should take another look at some of the people we thought we knew.
Lyfe
Star
- Joined
- May 11, 2020
- Messages
- 3,639
I suppose I have a question to some of the feminists here. I have noticed a pretty substantial bias in the whole idea of relationship equality for quite some time that really gets overlooked and unnoticed in society. There is a pretty signifigant stigma in any relationship where a woman is expected to cook or perform any of the functions associated with the traditional housewife role, yet make no mistske a man is always expected to perform tasks which are predominantly recognized as masculine in nature. Allot of women wont say they have this expectation cause it contradicts their false belief of relationship equality, but they do and it shows more often than not and when you really put it to the test(under the right circumstsnce) it reveals itself true always by practical examples...
My question is why is it ok for there still to be an expectation for men to still be the protector of the house in case of a break in when its not ok for a woman to have any sort of gender role based expectation at all?
What about fixing things around the house that need to be fixed? If a car breaks down on the highway and a spare tire is present and both husband and wife are in the car will equality influence the outcome or an expectation associated with gender? If there was a draft and it was up to the members of the household to select someone in their family to go to war then should not there be just as many women if not men if there were true equality and if it was allowed? Now I know full well a woman can do all of these things and they do, but it doesnt change the fact that there is an expectation. No matter what there is always the expectation that men are protectors in the family and that will never change. Yet its ok for women at large to shed their traditonal functions when their expectstion they have on men will never change
Why is there a hypocrisy in society where all this emphasis is on relationship equality, yet its expected by every women of their man to perform certain functions and many men will gladly do it, yet holding women to the same expectations is sexist? Many women will deny this double standard exists, yet wont truly respect a man they are with when it is them doing most of the things longly assosiated to men. My grandfather used to have a wood furnace and we would collect wood for it. Now granted a woman could do this, but if relationship equality truly exists then is it fair for the man and woman to take turns filling it up? I used to date and live with a woman who would ask me to fix things and mow the lawn as if that was her expectation, yet it was the same woman who strongly opposed to the idea cooking dinner despite my finances going toward her and her kid. My old boss was a woman and I rmember her critiquing the fact that her sister never received any help in a walmart parking lot to help start her car despite all the men there yet my boss is the same woman who scoffed at the idea of amish women and how they generally cook for their men.
My question is why is it ok for these gender expectations to remain with men, yet women are let off the hook with shedding their expectations and expecting a woman to cook a sexist thing?
The truth is that when you boil it down this idea of relationship equality doesnt even really exist, because despite a woman being willing and able to do these things long performed by men there will always be a reluctance to do so on her part and an expectation toward the man.
My question is why is it ok for there still to be an expectation for men to still be the protector of the house in case of a break in when its not ok for a woman to have any sort of gender role based expectation at all?
What about fixing things around the house that need to be fixed? If a car breaks down on the highway and a spare tire is present and both husband and wife are in the car will equality influence the outcome or an expectation associated with gender? If there was a draft and it was up to the members of the household to select someone in their family to go to war then should not there be just as many women if not men if there were true equality and if it was allowed? Now I know full well a woman can do all of these things and they do, but it doesnt change the fact that there is an expectation. No matter what there is always the expectation that men are protectors in the family and that will never change. Yet its ok for women at large to shed their traditonal functions when their expectstion they have on men will never change
Why is there a hypocrisy in society where all this emphasis is on relationship equality, yet its expected by every women of their man to perform certain functions and many men will gladly do it, yet holding women to the same expectations is sexist? Many women will deny this double standard exists, yet wont truly respect a man they are with when it is them doing most of the things longly assosiated to men. My grandfather used to have a wood furnace and we would collect wood for it. Now granted a woman could do this, but if relationship equality truly exists then is it fair for the man and woman to take turns filling it up? I used to date and live with a woman who would ask me to fix things and mow the lawn as if that was her expectation, yet it was the same woman who strongly opposed to the idea cooking dinner despite my finances going toward her and her kid. My old boss was a woman and I rmember her critiquing the fact that her sister never received any help in a walmart parking lot to help start her car despite all the men there yet my boss is the same woman who scoffed at the idea of amish women and how they generally cook for their men.
My question is why is it ok for these gender expectations to remain with men, yet women are let off the hook with shedding their expectations and expecting a woman to cook a sexist thing?
The truth is that when you boil it down this idea of relationship equality doesnt even really exist, because despite a woman being willing and able to do these things long performed by men there will always be a reluctance to do so on her part and an expectation toward the man.
Last edited:
Drifter
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2021
- Messages
- 515
Quick question: what makes you think this view of history is "one dimensional"? Considering that this view is supported by historical records written largely by men? Or did you forget that men were the ones who ultimately wrote everything? Legal documents? Memoirs? Philosophical takes on gender relations in which men almost unilaterally placed themselves above women in an ontological sense? You keep refusing to acknowledge everything the FeMiNiStS on the board try to give you when it comes to both life experience and historical documents.
Which feminists are you straw manning? The only stigma against traditional relationships are where its FORCED. Again, you completely ignored (or perhaps just didn't read) where it was said that these "traditional" model of husband as sole breadwinner and wife as homemaker are relatively recent roles. They're 50s American nostalgia caricatures. They don't represent human history before then and they don't describe the roles of women and men in cultures outside of the Western model. Youre being incredibly obtuse if you think that dynamic is somehow the universal natural order of things. There are men and women who love this brand of "traditional" gender roles and are fulfilled by them. No normal person has a problem with this. Conversely, there are men and women who dont feel fulfilled by these roles, or they're somehow incapable of observing them. How does men being the first line of deface in a hypothetical burglary immediately equate to gender roles? Its common sense considering the person attempting to inflict harm is most likely another man. Men are so quick to jump at the opportunity to use that as one excuse to claim men are natural protectors only to balk at the idea that men are natural predators as well. Also, weapons are an equalizer. I imagine there are more women than you'd want to believe who would not let their male partners go alone. Women HAVE done that throughout history -the women who disguised themselves as male soldiers in the WWs to fight alongside their fathers or brothers or lovers for example. A desire to protect and the courage to try has never been an exclusively male domain except where men have tried to make it so. As for you point on equality: you dont seem to understand the grievances that led to women embracing feminism at all. There are differences between the sexes and in general, there will be noticable patterns of tasks or interests each sex flocks to. The issue (for the millionth time) is that men turned these patterns into prescriptive roles and then instilled more value in male attributes. Ask yourself what would have to happen for some women to become so repulsed by "traditionally" roles. Why do you think that would be?
Here is my challenge to you: please provide evidence of the stuff you're claiming. Maybe link the studies that show women prefer leaders or that they still hold men to strict gender roles. Maybe provide some "true" historical sources that the evil feminists are subverting. You can't make a bunch of claims and then make no effort at substantiating it.
Last edited:
So in other words a variant from another reality that maybe doesn't exist anymore? Or you talking psychic vampires?
Aero
Superstar
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2017
- Messages
- 5,910
I think of them more like robots. Maybe they learned how to mimic a psychic vampire, but a psychic element would indicate they are human, which they are not.
I can't think of any other explanation for some people's behavior. It's just unnatural for anyone to be that singularly focused on trying to drag others down. Like even the worst narcissist knows deep down they have limits, but an Archon doesn't. They have no sense of self-preservation, they will walk off a cliff, and if they take people with them, it's a win.
Other words the ones that laugh at the world burning. A robot would indicate programming for a purpose. And no doesn't mean a human (where they at one point?) i think i might have ran across such entities...black smoked figures with purple aura eyes freaked me the hell out happened during a lucid dream