Why Females In Positions Of Power Is WRONG.

Gentlemen, I will be referring to a very lewd thing {(the 3-letter word that begins with an S)} ~ I humbly beg your pardon for that!!!


Spectral Depiction ~

[~} Male              > Female   > Child  {~]

{(The greater the space, the more it denotes a degree of nature-based superiority)}.  In the case of male and female, the 3-letter word makes it obvious who is meant to be superior.  Also, males have more physical strength.  These 2 things DO MATTER!  In fact, in my opinion, these 2 things are the reasons that women RELISH power over men.  One, males 'torment' the females during the 3-letter word.  Secondly, males are stronger and can beat up a woman.  Both these NATURAL events make it highly likely that the female will subconsciously and consciously seek 'revenge' for them.

Male-dominance based on these 2 things is biologically coded into a man's and woman's genes and obviously expresses itself physically.  The extent is so much that it's the most per*erse thing when one disturbs it.  It is perhaps one of the greatest unwritten/unspoken rules of nature.  Of course, the females are very happy having power over men ~ it's similar to if a child orders adults around.  An INFERIOR being will feel happy ordering his master around ~ if I am an employee and I get to order my boss around, I will feel a per**rse pleasure.  But in the end, I know I am wrong and also that I am out of line.  This is why children back off as soon as they are rebuked for trying to assert their authority over adults and women back off when they are rebuked for speaking to men in a wrong way.

[~} FOOLISH men who only wish to curry favours from females or have a grievance against males and so wish to trouble them or are genetically flawed and think the female is equal {(sometimes they think superior and worship the female race, as is so common now in video-games showing all masculine females)}, will ridicule the argument above by retorting ~ "An employee can be male or female and a boss can be male or female.  It's whether one has earnt it that matters".  This is a specious argument because NATURE has its own order.  The male is the dominant one as made by the SYSTEM of nature and so to dismiss it just because it's not a man-made system is wrong.  In fact, in the above scenario of having a male worker having a female boss {(a man-made system)} obviously clashes with nature.  Since a male will feel great discomfort at taking orders from a female, the man-made system of having a female boss is flawed!

[~} Lastly, even more foolish men will argue that sometimes boys are able to be doctors or a boy is able to be an engineer by age 15 ~ these are not only very rare cases, they are boys that often will reach full adulthood by 21 at any rate.  In that time, they usually don't become managers at work.  In the rare case where a child was an actual boss ~ I would NEVER take orders from a child, no matter if he was 10 times more intelligent than I am {(I am very average intelligence)}.  Some may argue that children used to be trained in apprentice-ship at work but that is again a teacher-student relation.  There is certainly no dominance by children involved.  One can expound this even more by having a theory whereby all boys by age 10 are in the work-force and by age 15 many are bosses over men who are 45 in a low-skilled job.  This will be odd to anyone because once again, a MAN-MADE SYSTEM is conflicting with NATURE'S SYSTEM.  In this case, all human beings feel odd if the discrepancy between ages is too much when taking orders.  In fact, our biological self-defence mechanism responds because we have had so much experience while we feel a child is just that ~ a child.  It has all the skills just like we do and may be twice as smart.  But age is a system in itself.  A natural one, whereby the progression of simply having lived till a certain age is merit enough.  And this is why adults will never be comfortable taking orders from even a boy who is 3 times as smart or 3 times as experienced as himself/herself.  Hence just as females being in power is wrong to impose on a man, it is wrong to impose {(en-mass/millions)} children being in power over adults.

Hi Anatol,

As I get older there are more people who are younger than me and many of those have reached the rank of manager. Now, when you are young most people are older and 'naturally' you take their instructions. You don't necessarily gain rank as you get older but you do gain some superiority due to more experience. But as you get older it's clear there you're more likely to encounter a younger boss who gives you orders.

I like to draw a distinction between Rank & Authority. Authority is based on superiority, while Rank is where the person has been paid to give instructions where I have been paid to follow those instructions. I may be superior, but the other person who may be female has been given the Rank, and it's a business convention. It sucks... but I respect Rank even if the ranking person is inferior. Factual data is used to defeat them. It doesn't apply in the real world, it's a money argument. Often it has been the case that the ranking person in charge was also an alcoholic - I still follow their instructions if I am paid to.

Intelligence and Knowledge are also important points here. Yes it's unpleasant if a younger person is smarter and knows the answer, but at the same time this can be quite helpful and useful. Credit where credit is due. A younger person may indeed have superiority but you can usually still compete against them.

The other thing here is this, a manager whether male or female is giving both males and females orders. So a manager tells everyone beneath them, what to do. It's not that a female is telling a male what to do but that can often happen. So here you are confusing the manager with a feminist. It's because they are paid to be a manager. It's not even skill, ability, or competency, and it's often luck (or favouritism) that they are in charge. They give orders because someone has to (and they have been paid to). Often a female manager is chosen because most of the people being controlled are also female (but some of them may be male). It's not good but at the same time it's not deliberately intended to cause offence.

In theory a manager is supposed to manage. It's a job which is different to the workers. The main aspect is to co-ordinate the workforce, but there are disciplinary aspects if that is hindered.

The superiority of adults over children is largely conveyed by size. Adults are bigger and shout louder, and have more money etc. What you have is visually apparent superiority (a form of status). The problems arise when you don't have visual superiority. If you were 7 feet tall and built like an American football star women would do everything you said and, yes, you would dominate them. If you're short and dumb that's not going to happen. So how would you fix that?

If women have been empowered by the claim of equality (instead of fairness) then the only solution is for the male of the species to become even more empowered and it's not clear how to achieve that. What is clear is that status is visual and any apparent or actual superiority will need to be visibly expressed.

Your superiority needs to be plainly visible to the female. Currently that's being tall or having a flash car. Lesser men shout louder. What is needed is perhaps some kind of right wing ethos. Women like men in uniforms and again that's visual. Tattoos are also a common feature. And as suggested by Devlin (Sexual Utopia In Power) the male puts on a display.

ShaunS wrote

Hi Anatol,

As I get older there are more people who are younger than me and many of those have reached the rank of manager. Now, when you are young most people are older and 'naturally' you take their instructions. You don't necessarily gain rank as you get older but you do gain some superiority due to more experience. But as you get older it's clear there you're more likely to encounter a younger boss who gives you orders.

I like to draw a distinction between Rank & Authority. Authority is based on superiority, while Rank is where the person has been paid to give instructions where I have been paid to follow those instructions. I may be superior, but the other person who may be female has been given the Rank, and it's a business convention. It sucks... but I respect Rank even if the ranking person is inferior. Factual data is used to defeat them. It doesn't apply in the real world, it's a money argument. Often it has been the case that the ranking person in charge was also an alcoholic - I still follow their instructions if I am paid to.

Intelligence and Knowledge are also important points here. Yes it's unpleasant if a younger person is smarter and knows the answer, but at the same time this can be quite helpful and useful. Credit where credit is due. A younger person may indeed have superiority but you can usually still compete against them.

The other thing here is this, a manager whether male or female is giving both males and females orders. So a manager tells everyone beneath them, what to do. It's not that a female is telling a male what to do but that can often happen. So here you are confusing the manager with a feminist. It's because they are paid to be a manager. It's not even skill, ability, or competency, and it's often luck (or favouritism) that they are in charge. They give orders because someone has to (and they have been paid to). Often a female manager is chosen because most of the people being controlled are also female (but some of them may be male). It's not good but at the same time it's not deliberately intended to cause offence.

In theory a manager is supposed to manage. It's a job which is different to the workers. The main aspect is to co-ordinate the workforce, but there are disciplinary aspects if that is hindered.

The superiority of adults over children is largely conveyed by size. Adults are bigger and shout louder, and have more money etc. What you have is visually apparent superiority (a form of status). The problems arise when you don't have visual superiority. If you were 7 feet tall and built like an American football star women would do everything you said and, yes, you would dominate them. If you're short and dumb that's not going to happen. So how would you fix that?

If women have been empowered by the claim of equality (instead of fairness) then the only solution is for the male of the species to become even more empowered and it's not clear how to achieve that. What is clear is that status is visual and any apparent or actual superiority will need to be visibly expressed.

Your superiority needs to be plainly visible to the female. Currently that's being tall or having a flash car. Lesser men shout louder. What is needed is perhaps some kind of right wing ethos. Women like men in uniforms and again that's visual. Tattoos are also a common feature. And as suggested by Devlin (<> Utopia In Power) the male puts on a display.

Hello,

This is all nonsense.  It's obvious feminism is so strongly ingrained into modern Western life that anyone born in U.S.A. or Western nations cannot conceive of a time or place without it.  I was born in Spain and that time there was no feminism in Spain, so I have seen a normal world.  This is why you are complicating life unnecessarily and have not understood anything I said ~ the CONCEPT of equality between male and female is flawed.  A man's ROLE by nature is to be the dominant one.  If one gives any sort of equality to a female he is going against his own nature ~ hence, he is a self-loathing idiot!

[~} This is the cause of all these problems.  Men like you want to give females equality and you start feeling empathy for them and start feeling their 'past oppression'.  It's all nonsense and you're only hurting your own gender and your brothers and your future sons.  Don't worry about women.  Worry about yourselves!  We men only have 1 life to live and females are here to make our lives comfortable and provide us with a companion.  Feminism {(women's education, women's jobs, women's sports)} was vigorously propagated by males and has turned females into the enemy ~ this is wrong and this is why 'equality' between man and woman is flawed.

[~} My suggestion to you is to watch this short video-clip a few times ~ these show how U.S.A. was just 40 - 30 years ago ~  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCsxdgW_xqY

Hi Anatol,

I think you have expressed your views very clearly. I think it's true that I don't share your views and I tend to disagree (sorry about that).

You said: "Men like you want to give females equality and you start feeling empathy for them and start feeling their 'past oppression'." Yes, to a degree this is the case.

I do understand that the world was exactly as you have said, you are correct. It may have been 'Normal' but now it's not. How should we correct that?

The problem is not that we disagree, and there are many people on this forum who will agree with your views, the problem is how to change the current situation? Remembering the past won't convince the female population and if they disagree then they won't go along with any plan to reintroduce their previously undermined position.

At the present time any changes would require the co-operation of the females of our species. Your plan seems to be to make changes without their agreement but I can't think of how you might do that and succeed?

So, I can clearly see what you are saying. What strategy do you suggest? I ask because I don't know the answer. One of the problems that people here have is dating females. How does your suggested video clip help with that? Won't they get arrested and thrown in jail?

ShaunS wrote

Hi Anatol,

I think you have expressed your views very clearly. I think it's true that I don't share your views and I tend to disagree (sorry about that).

You said: "Men like you want to give females equality and you start feeling empathy for them and start feeling their 'past oppression'." Yes, to a degree this is the case.

I do understand that the world was exactly as you have said, you are correct. It may have been 'Normal' but now it's not. How should we correct that?

The problem is not that we disagree, and there are many people on this forum who will agree with your views, the problem is how to change the current situation? Remembering the past won't convince the female population and if they disagree then they won't go along with any plan to reintroduce their previously undermined position.

At the present time any changes would require the co-operation of the females of our species. Your plan seems to be to make changes without their agreement but I can't think of how you might do that and succeed?

So, I can clearly see what you are saying. What strategy do you suggest? I ask because I don't know the answer. One of the problems that people here have is dating females. How does your suggested video clip help with that? Won't they get arrested and thrown in jail?

Hello,

~ Legend:  [~} denotes main-point.  [~}{~] denotes sub-point about the preceding main-point.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[~} Once again, you have completely missed my point!  The reason for this {(unless you are being facetious and do understand but are pretending not to)} is that you were probably born into a world where feminism {(women's education, women's sports, etc.)} was normal.  

[~} It is not the female of the species that needs to change ~ it is the MALE of the human species that needs to change back to his normal behaviour.  Consider this example ~ go into any office or work-place today in U.S.A.  One will see how rude the females are in general towards other males ~ there is a clear aura coming from them.  They know they can talk rudely to any man and NO ONE will do anything to them.  The moment a male says anything back, she can call the police and the policemen will lock the man up.  Now, imagine the same thing happens but this time it's 1975 America and the man starts beating the life out of the woman {(as he rightfully should and would have happened in U.S.A. 40 years ago, because no normal male will tolerate a rude woman)}.  Now imagine what the other males watching and any policemen who heard what happened would do ~ possible options ~

  [~}{~] They would help the man beat the woman.
  [~}{~] They would encourage him to beat the woman.
  [~}{~] They would do both the above.
  [~}{~] They would do nothing and watch her get the beating she deserves and fully agree with what the man was doing, because they will do the same thing if a woman is rude to them.  Interestingly, the females would stay mum and watch the man beating the woman because the females KNOW they are out of line, just as a child knows it is out of order if it is very very rude to an adult.

[~} This answers your question about da*ing.  Da*ing is immoral {(U.S.A. was anti-feminist but that doesn't mean it was right to have da*ing)} because it means potential p**-marital re*ations can occur and also, the male-female will be alone in a restaurant talking to each other like they are already married and sharing personal thoughts, even though they are not married ~ this is a SIN!  But, we will answer your question because U.S.A. has for the last 80 years considered da*ing normal ~

  [~}{~] If the female is under control, then she will have a great desire to be on her best behaviour.  Consider a normal female who is home-schooled, doesn't work and doesn't play sports.  How will she raise a family?  Who will marry her?  These are the things that will constantly go through her mind as she's growing up ~ hence, she has a great MOTIVATION to be on her best behaviour and present herself as someone willing to please her husband.  She will be submissive {(a normal female)} and not try to be masculine at all.  She will have one desire ~ to accommodate her husband, because he can divorce her if she doesn't work.  Hence, the females will be much easier to da*e because their OPTIONS are very limited!!  They will be eager to da*e males and be very pleasant da*es!!!!  This doesn't happen at all when females are independent ~ the males will now run after the females because she is controlling the {(3-letter word that starts with an S)} and males need that much more than females need it.  Once a female is free, she controls the 3-letter word, she will have many males chasing her because of the male requirement for it and the male of the species is doomed!!!  He will accept almost ANY condition and behaviour from the females once this happens.  

[~} This also answers your other query ~ how can things be changed now?  They can't!  This is why I keep stressing how important it is was for Russia/China/India to be TOTALLY UNITED on this matter ~ if these 3 nations, or even just 1 of them, had adhered to their patriarchal cultures and told the West "Go away!  You are insane men!" 20-15 years ago when the cultures started mass-contact through the internet, then one would be seeing a COMPLETELY different world!  

  [~}{~] The Olympics are full of females playing all these masculine sports.  Russia, China and India should be abstaining and saying, "We don't want anything to do with your abnormal system that has manly women.  We will make our own."  I think this is the biggest possible reason any normal male should have grave issues with the modern Western man ~ the modern Western man {(and now the entire world because the entire world has ALLOWED the Western man to brainwash it in every way)} is obsessed with finding novelties.  He thinks he's being very creative when he makes women into men, as if he's discovered something that's gold.  The man's massive ego has led him to do strange things.

  [~}{~] Trade, visas, etc. would all have been denied to Westerners.  The West would have responded in kind and may even have attacked these 3 nations.  15 years ago, the West was much more powerful than all 3 combined ~ but if these 3 nations had been just a bit brave, they would have easily seen the pitiful state of the males in the Western nations and thanked their lucky stars they decided to be brave.

  [~}{~] It would have given all the males in the Western nations either a place to go to ~ or they would say ~ "Look at how those 3 nations treat females.  I want our nation to be the same way." ~ no real change may have come in Western nations because all the men are so demented in the West now that they will attack anyone who is anti-feminist, but at least it would have been possible to protest here.  With China, Russia and India not being counter-weights to feminism, that protesting-power is also gone because no one great nation can serve as an anti-feminist example that one can point to for support and validation.


In summation ~ ~ ~ ~ [~} INDEPENDENT WOMEN ARE NOT MAN'S FRIEND! AND THIS IS NOT ABNORMAL. IN FACT, THE REVERSE IS TRUE HISTORICALLY BECAUSE ALL MEN WITHIN A COLLECTIVE-BELIEF SYSTEM OR NATION ARE BROTHERS AGAINST AN EXTERNAL COLLECTIVE-BELIEF SYSTEM OR NATION THAT THEY DON'T AGREE WITH AND DON'T SHARE VALUES WITH. HOWEVER, WITHIN ALL THESE COLLECTIVE-BELIEF SYSTEMS AND POLITCAL NATIONS THAT ARE MAN-MADE, ALL THE MEN WITHIN THEM WERE TRADITIONALLY UNITED AGAINST WOMEN. THIS WAS TRUE FOR 95% OF CULTURES AND COUNTRIES. HENCE, THE LOGICAL CONCLUSION IS ~ ALL MEN, OF ANY NATION AND RELIGION, MUST BE UNITED AND CONSIDER FEMALES THE ENEMY IF A FEMALE TRIES TO INTRUDE INTO THEIR NORMAL, MALE-CREATED WORLD. ONLY RECENTLY HAS THIS NEARLY SACRED, UNSPOKEN RULE BEEN BREACHED IN MANKIND'S HISTORY. AND THE ONES WHO ENCOURAGED THIS SACRILEGE HAVE BEEN OTHER MEN.

Hi Anatol.

I thank you for you reply, please forgive my ignorance. I am always careful to consider that my point of view is not necessarily correct, and I was raised after most of this happened as you suggest.

On this forum we have an interest in other cultures because we like to look at how other societies handle these problems and issues. My personal favourite is the Amish community, but being in the UK we don't have any of their group in this country. They often visit Wales because they have an interest in Farming methods, dry stone walls and that kind of thing. I think the Amish do have a sort of dating practice where they have chaperones. The Amish are a robust community that don't believe in a connection to the world.

Do you know anything about the Amish community and if so, what do you think about them? Is it perhaps a culture to promote as an alternative to the existing situation?

I want to add my own summary here. We have two conclusions:

Anatol:

ALL MEN, OF ANY NATION AND RELIGION, MUST BE UNITED AND CONSIDER FEMALES THE ENEMY IF A FEMALE TRIES TO INTRUDE INTO THEIR NORMAL, MALE-CREATED WORLD.


ShaunS:

What is needed is perhaps some kind of right wing ethos.


Anatol has said that it is the males that need to change - not the females. This is a good point worth considering.

ShaunS wrote

Hi Anatol.

I thank you for you reply, please forgive my ignorance. I am always careful to consider that my point of view is not necessarily correct, and I was raised after most of this happened as you suggest.

On this forum we have an interest in other cultures because we like to look at how other societies handle these problems and issues. My personal favourite is the Amish community, but being in the UK we don't have any of their group in this country. They often visit Wales because they have an interest in Farming methods, dry stone walls and that kind of thing. I think the Amish do have a sort of dating practice where they have chaperones. The Amish are a robust community that don't believe in a connection to the world.

Do you know anything about the Amish community and if so, what do you think about them? Is it perhaps a culture to promote as an alternative to the existing situation?

Hello,

[~} The Amish are madmen.  They are stuck technologically in the 1850s and wish to remain there.  I advocate NOTHING of the sort!!!

[~} The basis for society {(the foundation)} upon which to build the rest of society ~ NO FEMINISM!  No women's education, no women's jobs, no women's sports, etc.  FULL patriarchal society as it was for 4,000 years.  This will also naturally have the big-bonus of no sin of p**-marital re*ations and no g**-rights and all that other filth.  With this, one has a SOLID foundation for society.  Now, we can create it {(in reality, I"m just re-creating what the world was 40 years ago)} ~

U.S.A. has always pursued full technology and it should be vigorously pursued as long as it doesn't violate any rules.  For example, we may not want to have men getting 6 arms because this seems odd for mankind to do.  Even if we can do something by having the technology to do it, we shouldn't necessarily do it.  Same as cloning ~ we can do it but probably don't want to pursue such a trend of cloning people.  Build spaceships, build machines, build mobile phones, build computers, etc.  However, use those technologies carefully ~ for example, fa**book is a junk site.  Twi**er is stupid.  Chat-rooms are stupid.  This web-site is stupid!!!  The only reason I'm here is because I have an issue with the external, real world.  Otherwise, I wouldn't even spend 1 minute on a site like this.  It's a 'virtual-world' and not real!!!  

~ In summary, the patriarchy is the foundation.  Get women out of the way and build {(re-build)} the society on top of it by carefully following common-sense rules about how technology should be used.  Do not follow extremes like capitalism and communism.  Have a middle-way whereby money is not the only thing that matters but don't eliminate competition entirely either.  Social-welfare and all that trash ~ get rid of it because it's not necessary if the mother is there to take care of the children.  Di*orce should not be allowed ~ di*orce is evil and leads to much more harm than good.