Conspiracy Theories 101 Series

Part 9 of 12:

The Conspiracy Against Women

Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 1 of 12: Introduction
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 2 of 12: The Deep State
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 3 of 12: Conspiracy Theorists
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 4 of 12: Pedophile Rings
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 5 of 12: The Surveillance State
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 6 of 12: The Banking State
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 7 of 12: The Environmental Movement
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 8 of 12: Breaking Up the Family Unit
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 9 of 12: The Conspiracy Against Women
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 10 of 12: The Conspiracy Against Visible Minorities
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 11 of 12: The Media
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 12 of 12: The Stigma of Being a Conspiracy Theorist


By: Shawn Alli
Posted: October 10, 2017

Conspiracy Theories 101 Series

Full resolution jpg



Atheism & Science

The Justice/Legal System

Military & Police


Academia & Philosophers



Silicon Valley

Western-European (WE) Society




Let's get right into it. GSIGs are greatly threatened by female empowerment. Why? It's not just because GISGs are mainly a male only club. It's because real female empowerment can lead to the end of GSIGs themselves.


And no, Hilary Clinton and Madeline Albright are not a threat to GSIGs. They're well conditioned by the GSIG conditioning infrastructure. And no, GSIGs aren't threatened by feminists because feminism doesn't actually empower women (as you'll eventually see).

Suppressing female empowerment is a necessary goal in order for GSIGs to continue ruling humanity behind the scenes. And one of the best ways to suppress female empowerment is with religion.


All major GSIG religions have a script to suppress female empowerment. It doesn't matter whether it’s Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism...the one thing they all have in common is the suppression of female empowerment.


In almost all religious mythological stories, women are demonized just for being a woman. That's not accidental. That's intentional. And this has been occurring for at least 5000 years of recorded history. Google the term "sexism" and any major religion, and you'll see. I'll start you off:


On Thursday, eight Iraqi men were sent to prison for up to 13 years for the gang rape of a German woman on New Year's Eve more than a year ago. [1]


An asylum seeker has been detained after he allegedly launched a string of sex attacks on 18 women during a single two-hour train journey.

The 23-year-old migrant is suspected of groping the women on a suburban S-Bahn German train line between Munich and Herrsching on January 29.

The Eritrean-born attacker is said to have gone from one carriage to the next touching female passengers. [2]


In this derelict two-story house, 75 Syrian women were forced into sexual slavery, the largest human trafficking network ever uncovered in Lebanon.

Here, the women were imprisoned after arriving from their war-torn country, sold for less than $2,000, and forced to have sex more than 10 times a day. Here they were beaten and tortured and electrocuted, and sometimes flogged if they didn't get enough tips.

...The women left the house to get abortions, of which they had about 200. They also left to be treated for venereal diseases, contracted after being forced to have unprotected sex with customers, or to be treated for skin ailments, brought on by their lack of exposure to the sun. [3]


...According to an obscure ruling in Islamic law cited by the Islamic State, a man must ensure that the woman he enslaves is free of child before having intercourse with her.

Islamic State leaders have made sexual slavery as they believe it was practiced during the Prophet Muhammad’s time integral to the group's operations, preying on the women and girls the group captured from the Yazidi religious minority almost two years ago. To keep the sex trade running, the fighters have aggressively pushed birth control on their victims so they can continue the abuse unabated while the women are passed among them. [4]


French women who have been effectively banned from cafés and bars in certain 'no-go' suburbs in the country are fighting back.

Journalists and activists for TV channel France 2 went undercover in various communities with high Islamic populations in Paris to show how conservative Muslim men are enforcing social segregation in public spaces. [5]


The prosecution team accused suspect Hussein K. of having "attacked, strangled and raped" Maria L., a 19-year-old medical student who was on her way home from a party on October 16, 2016. He then left the victim in the Dreisam River where she drowned, they alleged. Her body was found in the river and her bicycle discovered nearby.

...The prosecution's charge described K. as having killed Maria "insidiously and for sexual satisfaction." 

K.'s arrest in December 2016 made national headlines when it was revealed that he had been on parole in Greece, where he had been detained on charges of murdering a woman on the isle of Corfu in 2013.

The Afghan national arrived in Germany in 2015 as an unaccompanied asylum-seeker and had been living with a German foster family. [6]


A 'celebrity' Saudi preacher accused of raping, torturing and killing his five-year-old daughter has reportedly been released from custody after agreeing to pay 'blood money'.

Fayhan al-Ghamdi had been accused of killing his daughter Lama, who suffered multiple injuries including a crushed skull, broken back, broken ribs, a broken left arm and extensive bruising and burns. Social workers say she had also been repeatedly raped and burnt.

Fayhan al-Ghamdi admitted using a cane and cables to inflict the injuries after doubting his five- year-old daughter’s virginity and taking her to a doctor... [7]


Swedish Green Party politician who ignited a storm of controversy after refusing to shake hands with a female reporter on grounds that it violated his Muslim faith, announced on Wednesday that he was quitting politics.

Yasri Khan is the second Muslim Green Party politician to resign in acrimony this week. [8]


The imam of a Port Coquitlam mosque convicted of sexual assault has been sentenced to three years and six months in jail.

Saadeldin Bahr, who also uses the name Dr. Saad, was the spiritual director at the Masjid Al-Hidayah and Islamic Cultural Centre.

In September 2013, Bahr was charged with one count of sexual assault against a female attendee at the mosque. [9]


A doctor in a Detroit suburb performed genital mutilation on as many as 100 girls over 12 years...

Detroit-based doctors Jumana Nagarwala and Fakhruddin Attar, as well as Attar's wife Farida, have been charged with carrying out female genital mutilation, FGM, on young girls from Minnesota...

...The Attars and Nagarwala belong to a Muslim sect called Dawoodi Bohra. They deny the charges and say a religious ritual was performed.

To date, the government has identified eight victims who were mutilated at the clinic, including the two girls from Minnesota.

...The girls had been brought into the clinic by their mothers but the parents have not been charged. [10]


I don't know how clear I can be. Generally speaking, Muslims hate and fear women. Period. You don't need academia or intellectual analysis to understand the sexism in Islam. You don't need to listen to liberal media outlets that try to dissociate the hatred of women from Islam. It's a package deal. You can't separate it.


Some Muslims practice that hatred while others don't. But either way, it's already a done deal in Islamic code/principles/scriptures. That's not up to debate. There is no debate about women's rights in Muslim countries under Sharia Law. And just to note, I left out Muslim pedophilia because it's already in another article (see Pedophile Rings).


During the World Hijab Day, American women wear American hijabs to stand with Muslim women in solidarity. [11] Good intentions but liberal delusions. Some German women even shout out Allah Akbar in solidarity. [12]


These women are enslaving themselves and their daughters. It's powerfully disturbing to watch the Muslimization of Europe, especially Germany. Why are GSIGs pushing for the Muslimization of Europe? Various reasons. Muslims reproduce at levels near Aboriginals in Canada. Women are just baby making machines and caregivers for Muslim men.


Why do GSIGs want a lot of Muslims in Europe? Because Islam is a religion of submission. Submission to authority is a strong agenda that GSIGs have been pushing for thousands of years. And if GSIG overlords are really extraterrestrials reptilians, they'll easily submit to them.


But these extraterrestrials may have to wear a human skin like in the 2009 TV show V: the Visitors. Though the writing and cinematography is pretty bad, if you want to understand potential false flags from extraterrestrials, I suggest that you look into V: the Visitors.


But let's get back to the Women March Against Trump. American women, liberals, and feminists in general believe that they can liberalize Islam. Sorry, but that's not happening. Nor will it ever happen.


For the most part, Islam will stay on the planet in its current sexist form. The only way it will end is when the last Muslim believer dies or converts to Christianity (a similar framework for the suppression of women).


While liberals claim that carbon is the scourge of the Earth, I believe that honor goes to Muslims in general. And liberals who turn a blind eye to Muslim sexism and sexual abuse aren’t far behind.


Of course, it would be unfair to show Muslim sexism when it's part of all major religions:



In an interview, the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhists said there was no reason why a future Dalai Lama could not be a woman – but she would have to be good looking otherwise she would be "not much use". [13]


...some of the earliest and most systematic documentation of rejection of female sexuality in Indian literature is from Buddhist scriptures, especially the rules of monastic discipline (Vinaya Pitaka), traditionally attributed to the Buddha himself.

...There are more rules for nuns (bhikkunis) than monks (bhikkus), 331 as against 227, because while everyone has to control their desires, women have the additional burden of not "arousing the desires of men."

...the Buddha states, "Of all the scents that can enslave, none is more lethal than that of a woman. Of all the tastes that can enslave, none is more lethal than that of a woman.

...Monks are advised to walk straight, without moving their arms and bodies too much, looking at the ground and not above, lest they get enchanted by "the glance of a woman."

...The texts repeatedly describe celibate monks as embodiments of dhamma (the path of enlightenment) while the lustful insatiable women are described as embodiments of samsara (the cycle of death and rebirths).

...By the time Islam arrived, Buddhism had already waned in most of India. But the Buddhist idea equating women's sexuality with entrapment and pollution informed Hindu monastic orders (mathas), especially those instituted by Adi Shankara. [14]



"A donkey is like a woman. It toils all day and sometimes has to give up food and water," a 2006 Hindi textbook from the Rajasthan Education Board read. "In fact, the donkey is a shade better, for while the housewife may sometimes complain and walk off to her parents' home, you'll never catch the donkey being disloyal to his master."

...In 2015, in Central India's Chhattisgarh, a teacher complained about a textbook which said women stole men's jobs, according to the Indian Express. The textbook, aimed at 15-year-olds, stated that "working women are one of the causes of unemployment in the country". [15]


Sexual intercourse with a girl below the age of 18 is considered rape. But since child marriages are not illegal, a man can legally have sex with his wife even if she is a minor, as long as she is above the age of 15. Further, marital rape is not criminalised in India.

Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act: Women are still not equal guardians of their children. A father is considered the "natural guardian" of a child, although the custody of offspring under the age of 5 will ordinarily be awarded to the mother. [16]


...In traditional Indian culture, girls are groomed to be good wives, not independent women with their own careers. Traditional values say women are only important not in their own right, but because they produce children and preserve culture.

This mentality leads families to treat them as objects who should remain pure and be controlled: women are their fathers' property, and later their husbands'. Parents worry so much about "losing face" in the community that while boys have all the freedom they want, girls are constantly advised not to do anything that would "bring shame". This mentality explains why so many are forced into marriages, or even murdered by their own parents.

...In Bollywood films, men routinely chase and harass women. As SA Aiyar points out in the Times of India, old-time villain Ranjeet did close to 100 rape scenes, "with the audience almost cheering him on". The message from Bollywood is almost always that if you harass a woman enough, "no matter how often she says no, she'll ultimately say yes". [17]



A devout Sikh who attempted to rape a woman with Down's syndrome after following her home may have targeted other victims, police have warned.

Harjit Singh, 45, was branded a 'predator' by police after he was jailed for more than six years for singling out vulnerable victims.

He also attacked two women at the Royal Free Hospital in Hampstead, north London. [18]


Two Sikh priests have been jailed for a total of 12 years for raping a 26-year-old Glasgow prostitute after she refused to have sex with them.

...The Singhs, both married and with three children each still living in India, had been in Scotland only a short period - to work at the temple in Glasgow's St Andrews Drive - before the attack in the city centre in April. [19]



Israeli airline employees cannot ask women to change seats to spare a man from having to sit next to them, a Jerusalem court ruled on Wednesday, handing down a groundbreaking decision in a case brought by a woman in her 80s.

Strictly religious Jewish men who refuse to sit next to women, for fear of even inadvertent contact that could be considered immodest, are a growing phenomenon... [20]


Israeli culture can also be slightly schizophrenic. Tel Aviv may tilt toward equal rights, but conservative Jerusalem is still heavily influenced by religious parties. Ultra-orthodox newspapers, which typically don't publish pictures of women, refuse even to print Livni's photograph. Livni, 50, would probably ordinarily laugh off the policy except that Haredi voters comprise a growing portion of the electorate, up to 15 percent. Livni will likely need to depend on the support of even small religious parties if she expects to form a governing coalition. [21]



The Vatican refers to the ordination of women as "a grave scandal" in our Church.

Often, I think how we, as Catholics, were silent when our schools were segregated; not questioning why black members of our Church had to sit in the back pews. As a priest, I have learned that when there is injustice, our silence is the voice of complicity. Sexism, like racism, is a sin. [22]


Pope Francis has ruled out a woman ever serving as a priest in the Roman Catholic church.

The declaration is not a change in stance for the Argentinean pope, who has always said the door was closed on women being ordained as priests.

But when he was asked and then pressed on the matter by a Swedish journalist during a press conference onboard the papal plane, Francis suggested the ban would be eternal.

"Saint Pope John Paul II had the last clear word on this and it stands, this stands," Francis said in his initial response, referring to a 1994 document stating that women could never join the priesthood. [23]


...For all the remarkable service that the Catholic Church performs, it is one of the world's dominant and most unshakable patriarchies, with tenets that don't abet equality.

...But the church's refusal to follow some other Christian denominations and ordain women undermines any progress toward equality that it trumpets or tries. Sexism is embedded in its structure, its flow chart.

...When pressed about that by an Italian reporter last year, he [Pope Francis] reminded her that "women were taken from a rib."

Was he ribbing her? He laughed and said so. But the metaphor remains, and it casts women as offshoots, even afterthoughts. [24]


Christian fundamentalist schools are teaching children creationism is fact, that gay people are "unnatural" and that girls must submit to men, according to a series of claims.

...Called Accelerated Christian Education schools (ACE), the schools originate from an education system developed in southern Baptist states in the US which has developed off-shoots around the world including in Britain.

Textbooks say of the role of women and girls and society: "God has given both the husband and the wife certain areas of responsibility in the home. The husband is to be the leader of the home, loving his wife even as Christ loved the church...The wife is to obey, respect and submit to the leadership of her husband, serving as a helper to him...She is available all times day or night."

A section titled 'Testimony of a Homemaker' in one textbook reads: "God desires for me to submit to my husband, train up my children, see that my house is properly supplied, pray without ceasing, teach other women to love their husbands and children, and be discreet, pure and a keeper of my home."

Former pupil Cheryl Povey who attended an ACE school in Bath, said: "I came across a lot of sexism. I remember as a girl finding it quite shocking. We were taught that if you're a woman, you should be subservient to men; your husband, your pastor and other male figures. [25]


I never adhered to this type of view, even though it's impressed upon Christian girls from childhood. Men—fathers—are always viewed as leaders of the household, addressed as the head of the family. Sermons casually mention a woman's need to remain "pure" before marriage or talk about the importance of a mother taking care of her family in the home. The insinuations start off relatively subtle. But by time you're actually married, people in fundamentalist churches start explicitly discussing the fact that if you’re a "real" Christian home, the husband is supposed to be in charge. Anything to the contrary is borderline blasphemy. [26]


Billy Graham famously refused to meet, travel, or dine with a woman alone. The presumed reasoning behind this rule was that Graham did not want to create the conditions that might lead to any extramarital dalliances or, given Graham's ministry, the mere appearance of any impropriety that would harm his ability to win souls to Christ. Many, many evangelical pastors and laymen still follow some version of this rule.'s increasingly recognized that the Billy Graham Rule is sexist in practice if not in theory. Because the leadership in evangelical churches is almost entirely male, the Billy Graham Rule has served to stifle the development and discipleship of female members of the Church. All too often in evangelical churches, men are afforded opportunities to meet individually with their pastors for deep theological discussions over coffee or beers while women are herded into a "moms' group" or other all-female gatherings.

Second, the Billy Graham Rule reinforces the sexist notion that women have less to contribute to the life of the Church. [27]


And yes, I'm aware of the various interpretations by anthropologists about the goddess worship in past cultures. And while such things do exist, it's more of an add-on instead of an operating system. In 5000 years of sketchy human history (aside from the 21st century), the dominant power structure has always been created by and for men. That's not accidental. That's intentional.


Why? Because GSIGs fear female empowerment. Why? Because it would lead to the end of their unethical conquest of humanity. Why? Because true female power has all the attributes of men, none of their weaknesses, and the ability to create life. That's a major threat to the GSIG power structure. Hence, the use of religions in all cultures to intentionally suppress female empowerment.


The fact that there are women in major religions is a contradiction and testament of how good GSIG conditioning has been for thousands of years. Google "Christian feminism" and see for yourself. These Christian feminists are delusional. They believe that they're going to create significant change in the church. Sorry, but that's not happening.


The fact that traditional women are proud to be part of Christian religions means that they prefer a passive and submissive lifestyle. And that's just sad. Aside from your specific purpose in this lifetime, you didn't incarnate to live a submissive lifestyle. How long will it take for Christian women to understand this?


And yes, many religious women also have stable financial jobs. But in the home, behind closed doors, many women prefer to play the role of the other as Simone de Beauvoir puts it in her philosophical writings.


Then again, de Beauvoir is obsessed with philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre and only feels that she has value when he's around her. many contradictions, so many layers of conditioning, and an infinite amount of space on the internet to talk about it.


The same is true for Christian conspiracy theorists (especially Alex Jones). Jones is a Christian who defends family values (though that's debatable since he vilifies his ex-wife). While he's definitely not a friend to the feminist movement, he's just as sexist as other Christian conspiracy theorists.


Talking to Megyn Kelly about US President Trump, Jones asks her if she would sit on Trumps lap. [28] Kelly has to laugh it off as a joke, as does Jones. But Jones would never ask a man if he would sit in Hilary Clinton's lap.


In one video, Jones compares Kelly to the gorgon Medusa, saying "I dare not look directly at her." [29] Really? Would he say the same thing about a male reporter? Of course not. And his associate Roger Stone is just as bad:


Stone previously tweeted...New York Times columnist Gail Collins is an "elitist c*nt," MSNBC host Rachel Maddow is "Rachel the muff-diver," Fox News' Megyn Kelly has a "nice set of cans,” and Fox's Allen West is an "arrogant know-it-all negro." He mocked writer Charles Krauthammer for being paralyzed, and tweeted "DIE BITCH" at former New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson. [30]


Aside from Jones' Infowars, Stone still gets major play in mainstream media outlets and alternative liberal media outlets. To be fair to liberals, Stone is a provocateur. He uses the above statements to intentionally piss you off and to stand out from the pack. And it works. Sadly, if you want to win an election in the 21st century, you have a better chance of winning if you have Roger Stone on your side.


Contrary to what you may believe, most Christians like their women weak, passive, and submissive. Why are Christian male conspiracy theorists against women? Because they feel threatened by real women in power. They're threatened by women who don't need men. They're threatened by women who are fully empowered.


Why are they threatened? Because Christianity has a strong basis in sexism. It's part of the GSIG script. Why? Because GSIGs feel threatened by women. Why? Maybe their reptilian overlords have an irrational fear of the female energy.


Or, maybe it's a rational fear where a matriarchal society in the past doesn't fall for the usual bullsh*t conditioning of male GSIGs and their extraterrestrial overlords. Who knows?


The only middle ground for women in the conspiracy theory movement is the new age movement. But even there, you'll find people channeling so-called various extraterrestrials telling the crowd that men are dominant to women and that’s the natural way it should be. Umm...what?


But generally speaking, the new age movement is the safest place for women and female empowerment. Why not feminism? I'm glad you asked, because that's our next subheading.



Feminism is such a huge issue that it deserves its own series. But I'll touch on most of the significant topics here. Where do we begin? Why not with Gloria Steinem? Steinem is a second wave feminist and a former CIA agent. She even defends the CIA:


In my experience The Agency was completely different from its image; it was liberal, nonviolent and honorable. [31]


The only problem with that statement is that it's completely false. During the 1950s and '60s the CIA overthrows democratically elected governments around the world. Aside from that, they attempt to destroy the black civil rights movement.


In the mind of most Christian conspiracy theorists, the CIA is using feminism to further their goals. And what goals would that be? The suppression of female empowerment of course. After women are given the opportunity to serve as support staff during WWII, they have a difficult time readjusting when the men come home.


Hence, the second wave of feminism, freeing women from the home. The problem is that when you remove religion completely, the extreme is atheism. And in the world of atheism, everything goes. And that's when the porn industry really takes off.


Feminists of the past convince women to throw off their traditional shackles and get into porn and celebrate the human body. And what do men at the time think? They love it.


Most men in the past and today love to have a traditional woman in the house, watching women in porn on the internet, and having one dirty mistress/prostitute to release their home life tensions. That's the trifecta for most men in the past and today.


Allow me to be clear. I'm saying that the feminist movement is indirectly responsible for the pornography movement we have today in the 21st century (with men in the porn industry as being directly responsible). Today, we have women from broken homes and broken families entering the porn industry.


Personally, I see pornography as a new cage for women. Contrary to what you may think, porn is not a female empowering ideology. It's just exploitation for men. Yes, women can argue that instead of men using women's sexuality against them (like in religions), the porn industry is empowering them to use it for themselves. I can understand that argument. Women have the right to use their own sexuality for their own benefit.


But does that act increase or decrease their overall value? If you're a prostitute, do you really value yourself? I hope so, because men definitely don't value prostitutes at all. It doesn't matter if the money is good. Generally speaking, men have zero respect for prostitutes (while still having some respect for the woman as a human being). If a prostitute dies tomorrow, most men wouldn't bat an eye.


The same is true of sluts (promiscuous women who have casual sex). Again, generally speaking, men have little to zero respect for sluts (again, still having some respect for the woman as a human being). If a slut dies tomorrow, most men won't lose any sleep over it.


And from these two examples, feminist would claim that men should have respect for a prostitute or a slut and value them as integral members of society. And that's the issue. Should men have respect for a prostitute or slut? I'm not here to tell you what to do. I'm just here to ask some deep questions, make you aware of a few ideologies and actions, and let you take it from there.


Personally speaking, no, I don't think men should have much respect for prostitutes or sluts. What? You're a horrible person. I hope you burn in hell. Yes, that would be the usual feminist reaction.


Though I grow up in a Catholic and Christian household during my childhood and teenage years, I'm more into flaky new age ideologies where people are consciousness, not their skin or body. Why does a person choose to incarnate as male or female? You'll have to ask the individual.


Whatever choice we make prior to incarnating on the Earth in regards to sex, that path will enable us to have unique experiences. It's not good or bad to a man or woman in theory. Unfortunately, if you're born in the wrong place at the wrong time, that theory goes right out the window as you experience the harshness of human society.


Don't get me wrong though. If you need porn and prostitution to pay the bills for your child/children, do what you have to do. When you have a child, your happiness should take a backseat to the wellbeing of your child.


If you feel that you need to stay in porn or prostitution for awhile (even a few years) to keep things stable for your child, then do it, and do it without feeling any guilt.


Providing the basic necessities of life for your child is one of the most sacred and important things that you can do as a mother. If you do nothing right at all on this planet, providing your child with the basic necessities of life is a strong characteristic on your resume.


The reason why I don't respect prostitutes or sluts (aside from those that are doing it for their child) is because they don't value themselves. They're just another commodity in the minds of men. Aside from all the reasons you incarnate on this planet, you don't incarnate to be a sexual commodity for men.


The only reason why you may think otherwise is because the GSIG conditioning at every level of society has been so good. It's up to prostitutes, sluts, and women in traditional marriages to start valuing themselves.


And don't get me wrong about being a stay at home mother. If you want stay at home for a few years or longer, great. As long as it's your choice, without conditioning. And this is where it gets complicated. Conditioning exists all around you (religious, cultural, and societal). But it's up to you whether you allow that conditioning to make the choices for you.


The problem is that it's more or less impossible to tell who’s making the real choices (the conditioning or you).


Do we really believe that Muslim women who defend their submissive status are the ones speaking?


Do we really believe that Christian women who defend their second tier status as empowering as the ones really speaking?


In reality, it's most likely the conditioning that's talking. Of course, the conditioning is only making the choice because the woman is allowing it to do so.


If your partner doesn't see you as an equal, you need to drop him like a sack of potatoes. If you’re partner insists on a prenuptial agreement (which I'll insist on), if you have your own assets, you should insist on your own prenup as well. Why? Why not? Fair is fair. You hope for the best, but have backup plans for the worst.


You can't have backup plans when you get married. In theory yes, that's true. In 21st century reality, you better have backup plans. If not, you'll lose everything in the potential divorce and work a sh*tty job to pay the alimony.


But let's really get into marriage equality. If you're a woman, and your male partner doesn't go down on you (eating out), but you go down on him (blow jobs) need to start considering divorce. Why? Because he doesn't value you as an equal.


You don't have to start the divorce proceedings immediately. Demand that he goes down on you. It doesn't matter if he likes it or not. You deserve to be treated like the queen that you are. If he says no, start planning for divorce proceedings in your mind and go from there. Don't bother with the therapy. If you can't communicate to your partner as adults, your marriage is already dead.


And then there are the implications for traditional women. I won't break up my family over such things. Don't get me wrong. I'm very pro-family. But I'm also pro-female empowerment. Being unequal in a traditional religious household only hurts you. You can pretend that it doesn't, but just before you go to sleep, when all your defenses are down, when all the masks are off, you'll feel the pain.


I'm here to tell you that it's not worth it. You didn't incarnate on this planet for your partner to treat you as an inferior being. The only reason why you may think so is because you've been indoctrinated to follow GSIG conditioning (via religion in this case).


But the current solution is also a trap. F*ck religion. Do whatever feels right and express your sexual freedom to the world. You don't need to go to the extremes of atheism/Epicureanism. There is a middle path. What is this path? As I mentioned before, I'm not here to tell you what to do. I don't know you or the circumstances you're going through.


If you need help deciding on which path to take in life, you need to start trusting your own intuition. How do you do that? By using radical dualism (see Philosophy of Mind in Philosophy Reborn Part I: Purpose and Autoimmune Diseases for Everyone in Part IV: Naturally Unhealthy Big Pharma & Big Media).


Personally, I don't like weak women who rely on men to protect them. A small woman with toned muscles and proper training is quite capable of dealing with any threat. I believe that all women should learn how to use deadly weapons and common objects as a deadly weapon. Those bullsh*t self defense workshops are useless against a man with adrenaline in his body and the desire to rape.


From high school and up, I believe that all women should be trained in deadly martial arts for free. And it makes sense. Women are the most vulnerable group to physical or sexual violence. It's only rational to train them in the deadly arts.


Women don't have to join the league of assassins, but they should be strong enough to hold their own, and knowledgeable enough to assess the situation and know what action to take.


I don't want my future wife to be weak. I want her strong enough to never be a victim of physical or sexual violence. I want her to know how to shoot all guns and how to throw a knife. I want her to know when a man is trying to manipulate her emotionally or mentally. It's unknown if I'll ever find such a woman, but it's nice to dream.


Women need to remember that most men feel threatened by fully empowered women. I'm talking about women who can give birth on their own without the help of doctors, hospital staff, or a midwife. I'm talking about women who don't need a man for anything, but still choose to be with one to enjoy life.


And men realized this thousands of years ago. That's why they created ideological scripts to suppress and control female empowerment. And that's why the conspiracy against women is so strong. Aside from thousands of years of conditioning (esoteric images) and ideological constructs, it's still ongoing today in every aspect of global society.


Let me give you an example of how bad it is today. Let's pretend that rape and sexual assault are legal for adults. It's a horrible thought but just pretend. Using today's mindset, what's going to happen? Most men will rape women every day at a global level. Why? Because they can.


It's only because of todays laws that most men don't commit such acts (though the punishments are very weak). It's not because of a strong sense of ethics. It's because of the legal system and the enforcement of sexual assault laws. That's all that stands between mass global rape and today's law abiding men.


And in this hypothetical scenario, what would women do? Instead of taking matters into their own hands and becoming the women of Sin City (2005), today's women would most likely play the subservient role. Why? Because that's how they've been conditioned for all of time, continuing in the 21st century.


Sadly, most women accept their subservient undervalued role in WE society. While there are exceptions with strong women who can handle themselves, most choose subservience. Why? Aside from convenience, the GSIG conditioning (all scripts) is very good and very effective today.


Contrary to what you may believe, most feminists today don't believe in female empowerment at all. They believe in new cages that serve the interests of men in power. Is feminism a GSIG script? No. But like all movements, it has been infiltrated by GSIGs.


The first wave of feminists is understandable in their desire to vote as equals. But the second and third wave has been corrupted by GSIGs. Instead of empowerment, they advocate that women are victims of male patriarchy at every moment of their lives.


While patriarchy is still the dominant ideology in the 21st century, claiming that women are victims is going too far. It's more accurate to say that women are conditioned by patriarchal ideologies. And for whatever reason, they choose to go along with it.


This is what today's feminist movement doesn't like, personal responsibility. Did you get blacked out drunk and wake up to find a guy inside of you? You're a victim. Yes, you are, but just because you can get blacked out drunk doesn't mean that you should. Is getting blacked out drunk an example of female empowerment? No.


What about drinking and driving? A man chooses to get drunk and causes a fatal accident. He can't say that I chose to get drunk, but I'm not responsible for the fatal accidental I caused. That won't work in the courts.


But as soon as a woman takes a sip of alcohol, in the eyes of the courts and feminists, she's not responsible for any of her actions. To be clear, I'm not saying that a man who rapes a drunk woman isn't at fault. He is. His action of rape is the cause. But a woman who chooses to get blacked out drunk is also a significant influence.


WE prosecutors, liberals, and feminists believe that as soon as alcohol enters the system, a woman is a victim and can't consent. When men drink alcohol, they're held accountable for all of their actions. That's a double standard. And that's disingenuous.


In reality, millions of people around the world are drinking alcohol and having consensual sex right now. These bullsh*t laws are in place to condition women to play the victim card any chance they get. That's not female empowerment. That's GSIG conditioning to suppress female empowerment. And again, that's not accidental. That's intentional.


I'll give you another example. A woman goes down on a man (blow job). None of his hands are touching the woman. She regrets the act and files a sexual assault claim. Because of feminists, the prosecutor will claim that the man emotionally manipulates her (without touching).


Even though the woman consents to the act (no alcohol involved in this example), feminists and the prosecutor will argue that she couldn't really give consent because of patriarchal emotional manipulation. Umm...what?


That's how bad feminists want to destroy women's ideology of personal responsibility. In the mind of feminists, female empowerment only exists in terms of finances and jobs. But it ceases to exist as soon as a relationship with a man begins.


That implies that women are competent to do jobs and manage money, but not competent in terms of a relationship. That's not empowerment. That's just a new modified cage for women pushed by the feminist movement. And that's not accidental. That's intentional.


More so, the feminist movement decries any type of independent healing. Once a victim always a victim. Only a support group of feminists can help you. Umm...what? First wave feminists would decry what feminism has become today. Sadly, it's nothing more than a GSIG script being played out.


If you choose to give up your personal responsibility for your actions, that's on you. If you're not making decisions with your own mind, GSIG conditioning will do it for you. And if you're playing out GSIG conditioning, you have no genuine purpose in this lifetime.


Some feminists love to cling to their myths. And yes, I'd love a female myth story about the grand times of female empowerment. But it doesn't exist in the historical record. To be fair to feminists, humans have been alive in our modern forms for at least 200,000 years.


The fact that we only have 5000 years of sketchy human history (aside from the 21st century), can be the silver lining for feminists. Maybe a female empowered society does exist prior to that. Many women around the world would love a wonder woman myth.


But just to be clear, the wonder woman comic/movie character is merely created as eye candy for male readers/viewers. Wonder woman is nothing more than a sexual object hiding behind the claim of female empowerment.


I'll be honest. I sometimes hold my tongue in criticizing women online or in person. Why? It's not because I'm a liberal puppet. I'm very much against feminism and conservative on many issues. But I'm aware of the history of chronic GSIG conditioning of women in every aspect of society.


When your sex/gender is seen as second class for thousands of years, that does something to you. You can pretend that it doesn't affect you. You can rationalize and compartmentalize it, but you can never dismiss it.


While holding my tongue may be disingenuous, I can't ignore thousands of years of GSIG conditioning of women. Women all around the world are trying to find a way out of this global GSIG conditioning, only to escape into another GSIG script/cage.


I empathize with that. But I also want women to understand the history of conditioning so women can take back their sex/gender. Being male, I don't want to overplay my hand in telling women what they should be doing. But I'll lay out a few possible steps that can lead to true female empowerment.


Step 1: Women need to want/desire true female empowerment.


Step 2: Women need to be aware of the conditioning at every level in global society in the past and present.


Step 3: Women need to create an organization with a set of principles that represents female empowerment regardless of the effects on current society (marriage, politics, religion). Ex. 1. Woman giving birth via natural birth, no doctors, hospital staff, midwives (single birth, mother in great health). Ex. 2. Choosing not to be a victim forever. Things go bad, but you don't have to be a victim for life. Accept that all actions either have no meaning, or there's meaning in all actions. It's one or the other.


Step 4: At least 80% of members must agree on these principles. Sexism in religion, politics, marriage, and work environment can't be tolerated. No lukewarm women in this organization. No religious feminists. No feminists who keep women shackled to unempowered feminist ideologies.


Step 5: Instead of women being dependent on the organization for help, they are encouraged to be responsible for their own lives and expressing female empowerment in their own way. The organization only offers tools to empower women, not dependence.


Step 6: Women need to be trained in all deadly martial arts for protection (hand to hand, knives, pressure points, guns, mental assessment of the situation...and such). I recommend Krav Maga as the foundation.


Step 7: Men will react badly to female empowerment and create groups to demonize them (worse than it is now). Women must be able to endure all of this. Women must recognize these circumstances as an opportunity for mental, emotional, physical, and spiritual growth. No one said that overcoming 5000 years of patriarchy was going to be easy.


Step 8: These men will demonize other men who support them. Men who support female empowerment can't remain silent. They will have to make their voices heard (online, blogs, books, all with their real names, no anonymity).


If you're a woman and desire female empowerment, you don't have to follow these steps to the letter. It's just a light guiding framework. But above all, to the female readers, your growth and the growth of all women on the planet has a lot of space to grow. You're not at your final and best form in 2017. You have lots of room to grow and discover/create your best form.


In 2017, true female empowerment doesn't exist anywhere on the planet. Nor has it existed for 5000 years of sketchy human history (aside from the 21st century). Just so you know, a true female empowerment movement will take at least a decade to make significant change. But like all movements, it requires a beginning. It requires the desire of true female empowerment by a few like-minded individuals.


To my female friends, you need to remember that you're not here to serve the interests of men through religion, politics, marriage, sexual promiscuity, or prostitution.


You're here to express your consciousness to the best of your abilities in the female form.


You're not here to be caged by patriarchal ideologies.


You're here to break those ideological cages and usher in a new era for female empowerment.


Remember, you have all the abilities of men, none of our weaknesses, and the ability to create life. You should be queens that stand at the top of humanity. Why are you settling for less?


Though I have a lot more to say about the feminist movement, I'm pushing over 7000 words already and I'm not even halfway through this article. I'll save the rest for a future article on the feminist movement.


Atheism & Science

Atheism is the backbone of science and the scientific method today. Why? Because atheists believe that only physical matter can cause other things to exist. Why? Because atheism is just neo-Epicureanism.


Aside from filling ones pleasures and desires, Epicureans believe that humans don't experience death because the afterlife doesn't exist in their mind. Only physical matter exists. And these ideologies are merely a continuation of Democritus' works. You see how it's all connected?


But one common thing between these thousand year old threads is that as great as science and evolution is, women don't really count as human. From an atheist perspective, women exist for the self-interest of men and the procreation of the human species. That's it.


It's only in the last few decades that it's common sense to see women as equal with men. To be fair, women will never really be equal to men. Why not? Because women have the advantage of being able to create life. Hence, the scales should always tip in a woman's favor. Unfortunately, that reality has been intentionally distorted by GISG conditioning via religion, atheism, and science.


Contrary to what you may believe, atheism and the blind dogmatism of science is a man's game. Women are allowed entrance only because of political correctness. Why? Because most atheist men believe that women are inferior and that the science proves it. Of course, they don't come out and say that today because they would be vilified, but from time to time, they tire of keeping up the facade. Don't believe me? See for yourself:


Hers and other atheist/skeptic blogs were soon flooded with comments. Many women told of receiving unwanted sexual advances at freethinker gatherings. Some men, meanwhile, ridiculed Watson as overly sensitive or worse — or threatened her with rape, mutilation and murder.

...Many acknowledge they have a "woman problem" — men outnumber women at atheist gatherings, both at the podium and in the audiences. [32]


...Many of the most prominent leaders of the New Atheism are quick to express deeply sexist ideas. Despite their supposed love of science and rationality, many of them are nearly as quick as their religious counterparts to abandon reason in order to justify regressive views about women.

Sam Harris...during the interview she asked him why most atheists are male. "There's something about that critical posture that is to some degree intrinsically male and more attractive to guys than to women." He added, "The atheist variable just has this—it doesn't obviously have this nurturing, coherence-building extra estrogen vibe that you would want by default if you wanted to attract as many women as men."

...Dawkins has spent the past few years using Twitter as a platform to rail against feminists for daring to speak up about sexual harassment and abuse. He not only rushed to Shermer's defense regarding allegations of sexual assault, but rushed to Harris' defense regarding allegations of sexism, even though Harris' sexism is so off the charts it becomes downright comical.

...People like Dawkins, Shermer and Harris are the public face of atheism. And that public face is one that is defensively and irrationally sexist. It's not only turning women away from atheism, it's discrediting the idea that atheists are actually people who argue from a position of rationality. How can they be, when they cling to the ancient, irrational tradition of treating women like they aren't quite as human as men? [33]


At the 2013 Women in Secularism conference, Ron Lindsay, CEO of the Center for Inquiry, gave what was widely regarded as a condescending lecture to the women in attendance, accusing them of feminist bullying.

...It seems to me, judging from recent events, that atheist men are the fragile flowers here—they, not women, are the ones wilting under criticism. Perhaps they can't stand it that women are withholding that "extra estrogen vibe" that used to make conferences so much fun.

Why would women join a movement led by sexists and populated by trolls? If this is atheism, I'm becoming a Catholic. [34]


...But after a few years of blogging, podcasting, and speaking at skeptics' conferences, I began to get emails from strangers who detailed their sexual fantasies about me. I was occasionally grabbed and groped without consent at events. And then I made the grave mistake of responding to a fellow skeptic's YouTube video.

The response from male atheists was overwhelming. This is one example:

"honestly, and i mean deserve to be raped and tortured and killed.

...I started checking out the social media profiles of the people sending me these messages, and learned that they were often adults who were active in the skeptic and atheist communities. They were reading the same blogs as I was and attending the same events. These were "my people," and they were the worst.

Dawkins' seal of approval only encouraged the haters. My YouTube page and many of my videos were flooded with rape "jokes," threats, objectifying insults, and slurs. A few individuals sent me hundreds of messages, promising to never leave me alone.

...Twitter accounts were made in my name and used to tweet horrible things to celebrities and my friends. (The worst accounts were deleted by Twitter, but some, such as this one, are allowed to remain so long as they remove my name.) Entire blogs were created about me, obsessively cataloging everything I’ve ever said... [35]


The atheist movement – a loosely-knit community of conference-goers, advocacy organizations, writers and activists – has been wracked by infighting the last few years over its persistent gender imbalance and the causes of it. Many female atheists have explained that they don't get more involved because of the casual sexism endemic to the movement: parts of it see nothing problematic about hosting conferences with all-male speakers or having all-male leadership – and that's before you get to the vitriolic and dangerous sexual harassment, online and of, that's designed to intimidate women into silence.

...Blogger and author Greta Christina told me, "I can't tell you how many women, people of color, other marginalized people I've talked with who’ve told me, 'I'm an atheist, but I don't want anything to do with organized atheism if these guys [Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris] are the leaders.'" [36]


The trouble with the atheist movement, of which I consider myself a part, is that sometimes it just looks far too much like religion.

...Richard Dawkins, the late Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett, are often referred to as atheism's 'four horsemen'. All deeply interesting individuals - but also exactly the sort of faces that a patriarchal religion might appoint as its elders. [37]


...In the atheism movement, social Darwinism has played out as the justifiable assault of women by (naturally) aggressive men.

...James Randi, chair of annual atheist gathering The Amaz!ng Meeting (TAM), used biological essentialism to rationalize alleged sex crimes and sexual harassment.

...The idea that sexual harassment and violence is just "what men do" is the 21st-century atheist’s interpretation of the laddist maxim that "Boys will be boys."

...The mirroring of religion is apparent in the movement's structural hierarchy. White men are at the top, serving as featured speakers at events and figureheads of the movement. Everyone else remains in the pews and balconies. This social stratification is both sexist and racist. [38]


If you're a female atheist, I'm trying to tell you that most atheist men believe that you exist for the pleasures of men and procreation of the species. Nothing more. Again, atheism is just neo-Epicureanism. They took everything from epicureans except the simple living and replaced it with the male evolutionary desire to dominate women.


Allow me to be clear. Atheist men would have sex with numerous women and toss them out like whores because that's the way they believe that nature/evolution works. Of course, they won't say it like that. But that's what they really beleive.


To atheist women, all of your dreams, hopes, and desires are meaningless in the mind of atheist men. Of course, your dream, hopes, and desires do have meaning if you're into spirituality. What do you say ladies? Wanna join the flaky new age movement and weed through the garbage and genuine tidbits of knowledge via your own intuition?


What do you have to lose? Nothing. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain. If you're not sure where to begin I recommend radical dualism (see Philosophy of Mind in Philosophy Reborn Part I: Purpose and Autoimmune Diseases for Everyone in Part IV: Naturally Unhealthy Big Pharma & Big Media).


And just so you're aware, this blatant sexism isn't confined to atheists. Many scientists are just as sexist:


The peer reviewer's suggestion that two female researchers find "one or two male biologists" to co-author and help them strengthen a manuscript they had written and submitted to a journal unleashed an avalanche of disbelief and disgust on Twitter. [39]


See Sexism in Philosophy Reborn Part II: Social Humanities for more examples.


Again, whether it's religious men, atheist men, or male scientists...most of them have a vested interest in suppressing female empowerment. It's just different GSIG scripts following one dominant GSIG script in play for over 5000 years. And that's not accidental. That's intentional.


Whether it's religion, atheism, or feminism...they're just new cages to suppress female empowerment. How long are you going to suppress what you know to be true? How long are you going to stay inside of your ideological bubble?


Again, most male scientists only see women as sex objects as a means of stress reduction for them and their super important scientific work. To my female friends, how long is it going to take before you peel back the illusions you have about atheism, academia, and science and finally see them for what they really are? Sexist institutions that serve the interests of men.


The Justice/Legal System

I'll keep this subheading short and sweet. The current WE justice/legal system is not one that serves the interest of female empowerment. While a justice system isn't supposed to serve any agenda aside from justice, that's only in theory. In reality, it prioritizes protecting men until their defense of them becomes completely ludicrous. Don't believe me? See for yourself:


In 2009, Joseph Wills asked Helen Pearson on a date.

She declined.

Then the stalking began.

...she reported the threats to the police. She reached out to them 125 times over five years to report this unrelenting harassment campaign. The abuse got so bad, Pearson said, that she considered suicide. "Every night you go to bed and you don’t know what is going to happen and you constantly live in fear," she told the BBC.

...That horrifying reality almost came to pass on Oct. 21, 2013. That night, Wills attacked Pearson with a pair of scissors in a nearby graveyard as she walked to the gym. Onlookers said they saw Wills drag Pearson into the cemetery by the hood of her coat. Pearson was stabbed eight times in her back, face and neck. She was saved by a witness, who jumped out of his car and shoved Wills away.

Wills was arrested, tried and found guilty of attempted murder and sentenced to life in prison. [40]


In December 2010, Magali walked into a Quebec City police station to accuse her stepfather of sexual abuse.

It was another four years before the case came to trial; Magali grew angry and frustrated at the delays.

That was two years ago. She faced an even bigger shock this spring. The man she accused of hurting her, at whose trial she had twice testified, was granted a stay of proceedings. [41]


But to 36-year-old Rastogi's dismay, the top charge against Abhishek was reduced from felony assault to felony accessory after the fact, with an accompanying misdemeanor of "offensive touching."

Fein noted that the plea calls for a six-month jail term, though only 30 days of actual incarceration, with the balance served in the weekend-work program, doing manual labor for eight-hour shifts but otherwise at liberty.

She declared herself doubly victimized by her husband and by the criminal justice system. She wondered aloud how someone arrested for a crime could be charged with being accessory after the fact without being charged with the crime itself, even though he was the only possible perpetrator. She also made it known that she is offended by the charge of offensive touching. [42]


A man has walked free from court after pleading guilty to the rape of a 12-year-old girl. [43]


The Globe and Mail spent 20 months investigating how Canadian police services handle sexual-assault investigations. As part of the reporting, The Globe looked at the rate at which police dismiss sex-assault complaints as unfounded, meaning the investigating officer does not believe a crime occurred. The data showed that, on average, one out of every five sex-assault cases is classified as unfounded. [44]


Contrary to what feminists want you to believe, there is such a thing as false sexual assault/rape allegations. While there's a lot of unreported sexual assault allegations, most of it wouldn't survive the legal standard of beyond reasonable doubt. I'll get into both of these issues when I write/post the feminism series online (estimated date mid 2018).


And the injustice continues:


Baugh sent Stacey Dean Rambold to prison for 30 days last year after he pleaded guilty to sexual intercourse without consent.

Rambold was a 47-year-old business teacher at Billings Senior High School at the time of the 2007 rape. The victim was one of his students. She committed suicide while the case was pending trial. [45]


Sir Young, 20, pleaded guilty to raping the girl at their Booker T. Washington High School in Dallas when he was 18, even as she told him "no" and "stop", according to the Dallas News .

But State District Judge Jeanine Howard stunned many when she opted for probation, which will include 45 days in jail, and also exempted him from standard sex-offender restrictions, such as staying away from children, attending sex offender treatment, undergoing a sex offender evaluation or refraining from watching pornography. [46]


A high school teacher gets 30 days in jail for rape? A female judge gives a confessed rapist 45 days in jail? Really? Clearly, the GSIG conditioning of women isn't just good. It's unbelievable.


And the injustice continues:


An Edmonton-area man found not guilty earlier this year of sexually assaulting his stepdaughter will stand trial again, following a decision by the Alberta Court of Appeal Wednesday.

In a split decision, the three-judge panel ordered a new trial after finding the original judge relied on myths and stereotypes in the behaviour of sexual assault victims.

...During the trial in February 2016, the stepdaughter told Justice Terry Clackson her stepfather sexually assaulted her on a regular basis for six years, beginning when she was in Grade 4. [47]


In 1979, the North Carolina Supreme Court made a ruling that continues to reverberate today: A man can't be guilty of rape if the woman first consented to sex — even if she later asks him to stop. [48]


And from time to time, there are cases that look like female empowerment, but are really new cages for women. Don't believe me? See for yourself:


A wealthy ex-wife is demanding a huge divorce settlement from her former husband so that she can maintain her lavish lifestyle.

...A trial is currently underway to determine how much she will receive, with Mrs Stephenson seeking $5million a year from her ex-husband.

...Stephenson would need $433,991 'net' in monthly maintenance to maintain the standard of living she had become accustomed to.

...Mrs Stephenson signed a prenuptial agreement before the couple married in 1991, but the document said that monthly maintenance would be up for negotiation if the marriage lasted more than seven years. 

...Her testimony said she was accustomed to a full social life during her marriage, in which she regularly ate out, and attended concerts, Broadway plays and sporting events. [49]


Alicia Stephenson is seeking more than $400,000 a month, plus a stake in other assets, from Richard Stephenson, whom she married in 1991. Her lawyer, Elizabeth Felt Wakeman, has argued during the trial that her client is entitled to maintain the lifestyle she enjoyed during the marriage, which included multiple homes, private jets and parties with celebrities. [50]


A former supermodel has been awarded £75million from her Saudi billionaire ex-husband after one of the highest-stakes divorce battles of its kind.

Christina Estrada wanted £196million from businessman Sheikh Walid Juffali to meet her 'reasonable needs' - which included two luxury houses, a huge clothes budget and five cars.

...The awards means Ms Estrada, who already has a home in Beverly Hills, will get £2.5million to spend each year as well as £18million to buy a lavish property in London.

...The case astonished many after Ms Estrada claimed her 'needs' included £1million for clothes, £40,000 for fur coats, £109,000 for haute couture dresses and £21,000 for shoes every year.

She also said she needed enough from her ex-husband to afford a luxury home in London worth about £60million, a £4.4 million house in the country at Henley, as well as £495,000 for five cars - three in London and two in the US. [51]


[Mariah] Carey, however, takes a different tack: instead of relying on Jessica Fletcher to help her through this difficult period, she is allegedly demanding that Packer stump up $50m as an "inconvenience fee".

"He moved her across the country and relocated her and her kids," someone described as a member of Carey's entourage told the US press. "She wants an inconvenience fee."

As anyone who has ever moved in their life knows, with or without twins named Monroe and Moroccan, $50m is small potatoes for the inconvenience involved. Personally, I reckon Carey should ask for $100m plus an entirely new wardrobe... [52]


The ex-wife of a green energy tycoon has been awarded a "modest" divorce payment of £300,000, despite her former husband starting his business a decade after they split up.

Kathleen Wyatt had earlier demanded a £1.9 million payout from Dale Vince, a former New Age traveller, although she did not lodge a maintenance claim until more than 25 years after they had separated, and nearly 20 years after their divorce. [53]


A couple involved in Britain's biggest divorce award will not be identified after a judge ordered their names should never be made public.

The husband in the case, a City trader, has been told to hand over £453 million to his estranged wife and mother of his two children. [54]


Allow me to be clear. To all my female friends, you're not entitled to live a life of luxury if you're no longer with the person that creates that life of luxury. I'm not saying that you don't deserve anything. You deserve the general standard of living in a divorce settlement.


What is the general cost of a regular (non-luxurious) house cost in the country? What is the general cost of food, transportation, and health care? Whatever it is, that's what you should be awarded by the courts.


If you're a woman in debt after a divorce, it's most likely because you're currently living beyond your means. You believe that you're entitled to continue your life of luxury. Such thinking doesn't represent empowerment. It’s just gaming the system.


By doing so, you're only proving the ideologies of sexist men. Women are vindictive gold diggers and will take all of your money in the divorce. It's part of their nature. I'll never trust a woman again. I'll never treat them as equals. As you can see, you're only propagating the current sexist ideologies.


I'm not saying that you deserve the lowest standard of living. I'm saying that you deserve a standard of living based on the average lifestyle in the country. Not poor, not luxurious, but comfortable and good enough to live on.


If you're a socialite and believe that you're entitled to a life of luxury after your divorce, you're not strengthening women's rights. You're hurting the female empowerment movement and valuing yourself as a commodity to be bought, sold, and traded. Judges that award socialites luxury divorce payments are keeping women unempowered with feminists cheering them on. And that's not accidental. That's intentional.


And just so you know, most men who marry socialites do so for surface reason...for appearances. Look at me and my lifestyle. Look at my beautiful wife. She only cost $10 million, not including potential divorce proceedings.


While many socialites enjoy the rich and luxurious lifestyle, in the eyes of their husbands or rich men in general, they're just commodities to be bought, sold, and traded. This is just another line in the GSIG script of female conditioning.


This is not female empowerment. This is a shiny and beautiful cage for women. Sadly, the cage is so beautiful that women prefer it instead of real empowerment. That's not accidental. That's intentional GSIG conditioning.


Military & Police

We all know that police and military units have been a male dominated field for most of recorded history. But again, with the proper training, women can do just as much as men can in these units. However, mass acceptance is still an issue in 2017. Don't believe me? See for yourself:


RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson is apologizing to victims and witnesses of "egregious behaviour" at one of the Mounties' top training facilities.

...The apology comes in a long-awaited internal report into allegations of harassment and sexual misconduct at the explosives training unit at the RCMP's Canadian Police College in Ottawa.

...The review of what happened at the college followed CBC News reports about rampant nudity, allegations of sexual harassment, bullying and other disgraceful conduct at the school for bomb technicians.

...The review team found a long string of "unacceptable" failures in the leadership of RCMP management, the disciplinary system and human resources practices. [55]


Sexual misconduct is "endemic" in the Canadian military, former Supreme Court justice Marie Deschamps says in a searing report released today.

...Deschamps laid the blame on a pervasive macho culture where the leadership tolerates abuse and leaves women in fear of reporting it.

...Deschamps found a "frequent use of swear words and highly degrading expressions that reference women's bodies, sexual jokes, innuendos, discriminatory comments with respect to the abilities of women, and unwelcome sexual touching." [56]


An unprecedented settlement that will pay up to $220,000 to women who were sexually harassed while working for the RCMP over the past 40 years has been approved by a Federal Court judge, who called the agreement fair and reasonable.

McDonald praised the agreement for including a public RCMP apology to the women — already delivered by Commissioner Bob Paulson in October — along with "institutional change initiatives" aimed at eradicating gender-based harassment.

Neither the RCMP nor the federal government explicitly admitted any wrongdoing. [57]


And that's the thing about settlements. The alleged party doesn't have to admit any wrongdoing. While some cases are settled because a trial would be bad for a corporation's public image, when egregious governments, departments, and corporations don't have to admit wrongdoing, it erodes the justice system.


It tells the public that the alleged parties just have to pay a fine when they intentionally create illegal policies. That's not a real justice system. That’s the illusion of justice. And that's not accidental. That's intentional.


And the blatant sexism in police departments continues:


A recent Star investigation revealed the reckless and often criminal actions of officers from Toronto, Durham, York, Halton and the Ontario Provincial Police: they drove drunk (sometimes in police cruisers), beat their spouses, invented charges and interfered with investigations to help out friends. The vast majority were allowed to continue being police officers.

...Const. Harvey Sham was disciplined in 2012 for creating a "poisoned" work environment for his "vulnerable" female subordinates. In 2010, Sham was in charge of 10 civilian employees, mostly female, working as wiretap monitors. Over a period of several months Sham repeatedly made inappropriate sexual gestures and commented on the women’s appearance.

...A Peel officer who has been with the force for more than a decade said she and other female officers have experienced discrimination at work because they’re women, whether it's sexual harassment or being overlooked for a promotion.

"Once you've spoken out, you're dirt. You're marked for life," said the officer, who asked not to be named for fear of reprisal. [58]


A settlement has been reached in a lawsuit that alleged a former spokesman for the RCMP sexually harassed a colleague.

A former civilian employee filed the lawsuit in 2014, alleging in court documents that Tim Shields physically and verbally harassed and assaulted her, and that the RCMP did not provide her with a safe work environment.

The documents allege that Shields tried to undress the woman, exposed himself to her and sent text messages saying he wanted a sexual relationship. [59]


...environmental harassment, which is considered an accepted part of Israeli military culture, is a source for the legitimation of harassment of the individual.

"It's hard to stop an entire unit from singing 'Ruti the Whore,' or 'Ruti is Sucking the Whole Company' or banning soldiers from singing on the bus. When a group of 30 (male) soldiers yell something like that at a female soldier, she can’t even complain, 'I was sexually harassed.' Who exactly would she complain to?"

"This is a culture passed on from generation to generation, and there is no regulation, no punishment, no legislation," Sasson-Levy says. "Here and there a commander issues a notice saying, 'Shame on you,' but there's nothing serious. These shirts are insulting, putting female soldiers on the defensive, with their wanting to run away and be invisible and causing them to doubt themselves, among other things. In other words, the harassment works – maintaining the definition of the army as an exclusively male organization, even if the goal is not conscious." [60]


Langan and her co-authors found the challenges for female officers began with announcing their pregnancies, which often quickly meant being transferred to duties typically reserved for officers on the disability list.

And several women expressed the feeling that becoming a mother caused them to automatically lose the professional gains they had made before getting pregnant.

"Often, after having to prove themselves all the way along, they lose ground when they announce their pregnancies, and sometimes they don't regain it after they come back from their maternity leave," Langan said. [61]


Two women have filed a $167-million class action lawsuit against the Waterloo Regional Police Services board and police association claiming they experienced systemic and institutional gender-based discrimination and harassment on the job.

..."Policing is [a] very sexualized environment. There was a lot of quote-on-quote locker room banter. The greatest difficulty I had was with senior officers, officers who had power and control to influence my career, would proposition me," Rivers told CBC News.

She said minor errors she made were blown out of proportion while mistakes by her male colleagues were swept under the rug.

"When I tried to address the issues I was facing internally, I was dismissed and ridiculed at every turn," Rivers said in a release about the lawsuit. [62]


Brig.-Gen. Al Meinzinger sent a formal written apology to the Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres in February, five months after its Governor General's Award-winning educator Julie Lalonde complained about being whistled at, cat-called, laughed at and openly disrespected by officer cadets she had been invited to speak to.

Lalonde says cadets at the four Saturday talks she delivered at the military college in Kingston, Ont. were the most hostile audiences she'd had in a career of speaking about sexual assault prevention.

She says following one especially rowdy session, a third-year cadet made a point of giving Lalonde a visual once-over before dismissing her: "I might have listened to you if you weren't a civilian and a woman."

..."It scared me and I think we should all be frightened to hear about how normalized that attitude is at that school." [63]


Bikos interviewed 15 women from five police services across Southwestern Ontario.

Her findings revealed many of the women found themselves at odds with a police culture that has enshrined macho stereotypes as a professional virtue, putting the women at a disadvantage compared to their male colleagues.

"They felt that what they brought to the job was devalued in many cases both professionally and personally," Bikos said. [64]


Openly devaluing/disrespecting a woman just for being a woman shows that GSIG conditioning of male superiority is still successful in the 21st century. And again, that's not accidental. That's intentional.


This is where things get interesting. Not because of the lack of women in politics, or the lack of women at the very top (Margaret Thatcher and Angela Merkel). It's because when a woman is fully empowered, her style of governance will most likely be different. I say most likely because we don't really know. Angela Merkel is the leader of the German Christian Democratic Party. Being the leader of a sexist religious party is not empowerment.


And turning women into men (not literally) also isn't female empowerment. Madeline Albright is such an example. And I'm sure Hilary Clinton (if she had won) would have been another example. Contrary to what you may believe, these two women don't represent female empowerment.


To be fair, I'm not saying that female empowerment represents a nurturing or peaceful government. But due to GSIG conditioning of women, it's difficult to ascertain the correct qualities of women in terms of governance.


Madeline Albright and Hilary Clinton are the products of Plato's ideals for women. Contrary to what you may believe, Plato doesn't really advocate for the equality of women. He believes in conditioning women to act like men and be more rational. Don't believe me about Plato? See for yourself:


...since humans have a twofold nature, the superior kind should be such as would from then on be called 'man.' [65]


And if a person lived a good life throughout the due course of this time he would at the end return to his dwelling place in his companion star, to live a life of happiness that agreed with his character. But if he failed in this, he would be born a second time, now as a woman. [66]


A woman's natural potential for virtue is inferior to a man's, so she's proportionally a greater danger, perhaps even twice as great. [67]


Unfortunately, ancient, medieval, and modern philosophers have played a significant role in suppressing of female empowerment (via GSIG scripts). Hence, my reasons for attempting to undo this conditioning is both personal and for philosophical reasons.


But the question remains, what is the correct form of governance by a fully empowered woman? Or, is the answer relative to a particular era with particular conditioning? Would a fully empowered woman create a better world for both sexes? Will men follow such a woman or attempt to sabotage her leadership?


One of the reasons why many women don't get involved in politics is because they don't usually have the stomach for bullsh*t, especially bullsh*t created by sexist men. Female candidates running for political office are aware of how their errors are magnified, with men being forgiven for their transgressions.


And besides, Margaret Thatcher came from humble beginnings. In the end, she became a monster to low-income workers. Unless women play the game, they'll be ostracized from everyone. Hence, the low amount of women in politics. Of course, women are screwed either way. If they don't want to play the bullsh*t games, they're a bitch. If they play the game, they're a sellout to women. Either way, men win.


Aside from my lack of answers, feminists have also struggled with such questions. In our current false democracy, the issue is about what oligarch we get to elect. In the 2016 US election, feminists, along with Hollywood and Wall Street, mobilize everything they have for Hilary Clinton.


It's hilarious, that despite all of that, they still lose the executive office, the House, and the Senate. In their zealous support for Clinton, feminists shun women who vote for Trump.


But trust is a big thing for people. And I think that it's more true for women. Generally speaking, at our current level of development and GSIG conditioning, if a woman doesn't trust their candidate, they won't vote for them, no matter how bad the other candidate may seem. And that's one reason why Clinton loses. Another reason is her demonization of Bill Clinton's alleged rape victims. [68] [69] [70] [71]


Contrary to what you may believe, WE society is run on trust.


WE governments trust you to file your taxes at the end of the year.


You trust that the car beside you isn't going to intentionally cause an accident.


You trust that pilots won't intentionally crash a plane.


You trust that your car will start when you turn it on.


You trust that when you go to sleep at night you'll wake up in the morning.


You trust that when your children go to school, you'll see them when school is done for the day.


There are no guarantees for any of this. It's all based on trust.


But the question remains. What is the ideal female empowering form of governance? Is it the segregation of men and women (lesbian feminism)? Maybe. These lesbian communes can easily create life via sperm banks. And if they're skilled in deadly martial arts, they have little to fear.


Or, does real female empowerment require a matriarchal myth to inspire women? Can women even attain real female empowerment in the 21st century with all the GSIG conditioning around them and humanity operating at a low level of development?


I'm not egotistical enough to believe that I have the correct answers. Women who desire real female empowerment have to figure it out on their own. But if you're lost and not sure where to start, I recommend radical dualism (see Philosophy of Mind in Philosophy Reborn Part I: Purpose and Autoimmune Diseases for Everyone in Part IV: Naturally Unhealthy Big Pharma & Big Media).


While I may not have the answers, I can tell you that intellectuals and philosophers from academia definitely don't have the answers.


Academia & Philosophers

Even though Simone de Beauvoir plays a role in the early feminist movement, it's more of a critique against traditional patriarchal ideologies/systems of power. But criticism of patriarchy doesn't necessarily represent the empowerment of women.


Beauvoir is obsessed with fellow philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre and only feels that she has value when she's with him. Not exactly female empowerment. But feminists, like all people, excel in rationalizing and justifying their actions relative to their ideologies.


Another philosopher that is no friend to the feminist movement or female empowerment is Ayn Rand. Despite the libertarian doctrine advocating Rand's sense of selfishness, it doesn't work.


Rand's objectivism and libertarianism has never been successful in a developing or developed country. There are zero success stories. That's a pretty bad track record. And the Libertarian Party wonders why their candidate has never won a single seat in federal politics.


And yet, followers of Rand (libertarians) constantly cry foul over the current economic system every time a recession occurs. In reality, recessions usually occur because of GSIG manipulation of banks, stocks, markets, money flow, and interest rates.


Aside from GSIG conditioning, the control of money is the main GISG method for controlling people/society. Of course, if US President Trump authorizes the US Treasury to print legal currency and replace Federal Reserve notes, that would be a big problem for GSIGs.


But let's get back to Rand. She believes that people should act in their own self-interest. In her mind, self-interest represents the highest value of human nature. That's it. End of story.


Of course, that's a problem for visible minorities and women. Why? Because racism and sexism will flourish under Rand's ideologies. Why? Because even though she advocates for government to protect people from sexism and racism publicly, that doesn't apply to private businesses/corporations.


Such corporations will get a pass to discriminate against employees because of unfettered ruthless capitalism. Sexism, racism, sexual orientation, and genetic discrimination will become the norm in Rand’s perfect world.


Remember, Rand is a follower of Aristotle. And Aristotle is just as sexist and racist as all the philosophers before and after him. As a real philosopher (not that academic bullsh*t), I apologize to women on behalf of all philosophers. I'm doing my best to undo a lot of their garbage that still pollutes the 21st century. But it's a lot of work.


Even rape would flourish in Rand's world. Why? Because both the rapist and victim are acting in their own self-interest. The rapist is acting in his self-interest to rape. The victim is acting in her self-interest to get away.


Who determines the winner? Nature and reality. Which means 9/10 times, the perpetrator will win. Of course, if all women are trained in deadly martial arts in high school, that would change the odds significantly.


You need to remember that Rand has absolutely no interest in female empowerment. She wouldn't mind if all women and 99% of the human population dies tomorrow. If she's alive, everything's good.


Allow me to be blunt. Rand is cracked in the head. Her objectivist ideologies are completely ludicrous. Even the self-interest of moviegoers proves that her infamous book Atlas Shrugged (adapted into a movie) is complete garbage as a monumental box office failure. [72] [73] [74]


Interestingly enough, Rand, like many feminists, are atheists. While I despise atheists, I understand why many feminists today feel that they have to be atheist as well. Religion is just too toxic for women that love female empowerment.


But then again, atheism has the same faults. Atheism is just the lesser of the two. And atheism is merely neo-Epicureanism without the moderation, with personal responsibility going right out the window.


And just so we're clear, Rand would be against climate change as well. Why? Self-sacrifice and social responsibility are toxic ideologies in her mind. Sacrificing our standard of living to save the planet wouldn't compute in her mind.


Lowering our carbon lifestyle to save humanity is against Rand's self-interest doctrines. Rand's ideologies are best seen in Netflix's House of Cards characters Francis and Claire Underwood.


For whatever reason, Rand has faith in women being able to change things from within. If there's sexism in the workplace, change it from within. That's been tried and has more or less failed in every example.  Rand is completely blind to the 5000 years of patriarchal power structures throughout global society.


If you think that you're going to change sexism and racism in your workplace from within (without help from media, or the public in general), you’re deluding yourself. Do you think that my online articles and books will end racism and sexism via radical dualism on its own? Of course not.


People need to experience radical dualism for themselves and go from there (see The Failure of Academic Philosophy & Racism & Sexism in Philosophy Reborn Part II: Social Humanities).


Rand believes in the duality of reason vs. faith. Yawn. She believes that religious people are weak in the mind because they ignore reason. She believes that people should never take anything on faith.


But faith is just another word for trust. And trust is necessary to run a society. However, whether trust is a gift or is earned is debatable. Sadly, Rand is unaware of the fact that selfishness and reason/rationality rarely go hand in hand.


And Rand is incorrect about faith. Faith can be a very powerful tool. Faith for Muslim believers has changed the world, not for the better, but it's still a significant negative change nonetheless.


And this religious faith in jihad is still occurring in the 21st century despite atheism and WE liberal education. Why? Because you can't intellectualize social problems. You can't educate the racism or sexism out of people. It's not possible.


People in academia who intellectualize sexism, racism, and religion are some of the dumbest people on the planet. None of their efforts will lead to any meaningful results. It's just a lot of hot air.


It's a shame that young undergrads don't realize this and continue to take university courses that supposedly give knowledge or critical analysis. Sorry, but you can do that home sitting on the deck via reflection.


You don't need academia to help you in order to solve social problems. Any solution they come up with will be complete garbage. Why? Because social problems are unfalsifiable issues. Attempting to analyze unfalsifiable ideologies will never lead to any significant growth.


It's only by using another unfalsifiable ideology (like radical dualism) can people begin to understand the overarching ideologies of society in general and the ones you utilize in your life.


Allow me to be clear. Intellectuals in academia are incapable of solving sexism in global society. They can't even solve sexism in their own universities and departments. Don't believe me? See for yourself:


White women across all faculty ranks make about 78 cents for every dollar a man makes. Unsurprisingly, the pay gap is worse for women of color.

...Women tend to drop out of the academic pipeline more often than men, for a variety of reasons like discriminatory workplaces or parenting choices. get cited more than women, and a research article written by a woman and published in a top journal will still receive significantly fewer citations than if the same article was written by a man. Having fewer citations makes an academic less likely to be hired, or promoted.

...a "feminine" name on a CV will be rated as less competent than a male name, and will be paid less.

...women pay a “baby penalty” over the course of their careers in academia. It seems that family formation negatively affects women’s academic careers, while it positively affects men’s academic careers.

...Sexual harassment is a huge issue in academia. My field, philosophy, has a serious sexual harassment problem. A disturbing number of male professors are sexually harassing and assaulting their students and colleagues...Well-respected philosophers (many of whom specialize in ethics, ironically) are retaliating against those who speak up about their experiences. [75]


A few years ago, I started my postdoc in a prominent biology lab at a top U.S. university, supported by a prestigious fellowship. I thought I was on track to become a professor. Instead, I am one of a number of female postdocs to leave the lab prematurely in recent years because of my supervisor's sexist behavior and the toxic lab environment she created. (Yes, she—women can be sexist, too, though I initially thought there would be little chance of facing sexism in a female professor's lab.)

...When I was assigned to give talks at conferences, my supervisor told me—in front of my peers—that I was the token woman. She frequently assigned the women secretarial and janitorial duties, such as cleaning common areas, organizing activities, and running her personal errands. When I discovered that my male colleagues were getting raises, I asked my supervisor for fair treatment, but she denied giving the raises and rejected my request.

...I approached the university ombuds office for help, but the staff said the strongest actions they could take were to "keep an eye on my supervisor" and send her a warning letter if the office received multiple complaints. They advised—not unkindly—that lodging an official complaint with the human resources (HR) department would result in a prolonged, ugly battle with my supervisor. [76]


In the competitive world of academia, student evaluations are often used as a tool in the process of hiring and promotion. That the evaluations may be biased against female professors is particularly problematic in light of existing gender imbalance, particularly at the highest echelons of academia

...Set alongside the unconscious bias of academic recruiters themselves, as well as the difficulty of juggling parenthood with the demands of research, the apparent sexism in student evaluations provides yet another hurdle for women in academia. [77]


In reality, there's no such thing as unconscious bias. There are only people who refuse to acknowledge their racist or sexist ideologies (see Philosophy of Mind in Philosophy Reborn Part I: Purpose). And the sexism in academia continues:


...We knew sexism was going to shape our experiences as scholars. But the gendered and sexualized power dynamics within our departments and our profession go far beyond the work itself, and it's only in hindsight that we have begun to recognize the trauma some of us have endured even from our own mentors.

...While I was a part of a circle of incredibly resilient and mutually supportive feminist academic women, none of us felt empowered to challenge the status quo...The prevailing sentiment was that this was the price we paid to do what we loved.

...I've had so many moments where I had to pause and ask myself how some of the smartest, most educated, outspoken, feminist women in the world find ourselves in a field where sexual harassment, stalking, assault, and coercion are routine, accepted, and condoned. The insidious nature of sexism in academia is staggering when I look back at it from outside. [78]


And if marriage was a game changer, motherhood seemed poised to take women off the playing board entirely. On hearing that I was expecting a second child, my chair blurted out, "Oh no!" before quickly regaining her composure...The dean responded with no hint of irony, "You know, I just returned from China where women are afraid to get pregnant because they might be fired." The message was clear — I should consider myself lucky to have a job.

...When being introduced to new colleagues, it stung when my credentials often ended with "wife" while my husband's introduction always included "faculty" or "professor." Did no one notice that we held the same degree from the same institution, and even the same academic title?...But several well-publicized slights underscore that even the profession's most famous female economists are relegated to back seat roles in relation to their male economist partners. [79]


If you're a woman and desire female empowerment but don't know where to begin, forget feminism or academia. They don't have any significant answers for you. And any answers they do have are not ones of female empowerment, but rather female disempowerment.


Instead of using Google to meet online groups, or constantly looking to others for help, have you ever tried looking within?  Why not give radical dualism a try. Yes, it's a bit flaky, like all new age things. But what do you have to lose? All other solutions have failed. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.


Female empowerment still eludes women on the global scale in 2017. That's not accidental. That's intentional. And the proof is in the very article you're reading.


I'm writing this article to show you that all of the trillions of dollars of time and effort to combat sexism has been a complete failure. If it was a success, you wouldn't be reading this article. How long are you going to ask for help from others when you can get the answers from within via radical dualism?



Aside from feminism, objectivism, atheism, science, or academia, another place where you won't find female empowerment is sports. The fact that you may think that female sports represents empowerment is merely an illusion.


Women are only allowed to enter because the refusal would be too much even for GSIGs. Men who enjoy sports don't actually like to watch women sports. They do it grudgingly to show their girlfriend or wife that they're not sexist.


And that's the thing that many feminists or liberals don’t understand. Many sexist men have girlfriends or wives and are not sexist to them. But they're sexist to almost every other woman. Why? As I already mentioned above, many men like to have their girlfriend/wife that they settle down with, and one or more various women on the side to treat like dirt.


Why do boyfriends and husbands treat other women like dirt and not their girlfriend/wife? Because they compartmentalize their sexism. Just as women are starting to catch onto men’s bullsh*t, sexist men are upping their game just as much.


It's fascinating to watch. Extraterrestrials that supposedly monitor humans must be enjoying the show as each sex, each religious group, and each political group tries to outdo the other.


So what's in it for women athletes, aside from the lack of funding relative to men? Glory and social responsibility. Some women athletes see themselves as role models for the next generation. And who am I to judge? I know a few actors and actresses that get into acting in order to be a role model for the next generation. To each their own (within ethics).


However, if you want to be a role model, you can't do it in a sexist sports culture. And unfortunately, sexism is rampant in sports in terms of male coaches/doctors sexually assaulting their young female athletes:


A criminal trial into one of the worst sports scandals in Canadian history opens Monday to determine the fate of a former coach of the national girls ski team who is accused of sexually abusing 12 underage athletes in the 1990s.

...An investigation by La Presse has revealed that Alpine Canada, the national ski federation that oversees competitive skiing in the country, had been warned about Charest's reputation before it hired him and that it muzzled athletes he allegedly victimized.

Things came to a head in February 1998. During a competition abroad, a fight broke out between three female skiers. They had discovered that their coach had been having intimate relations with the other girls at the same time as them...

Word of the situation made it back to the head office of Alpine Canada in Calgary...The federation opened an investigation and the coach was suspended. He resigned several days later...

That's when an alleged vast coverup began.

The three athletes were advised to keep quiet and warned about the possible loss of sponsorships and the impact this could have on their careers... [80]


Another alleged victim of Bertrand Charest testified at his sex-assault trial Wednesday and said the former ski coach put his hands down her pants when she was about 16.

...She said that at the time she "would have done anything" for Charest and hoped the alleged incidents meant it would be her turn to get more attention from the coach.

"I wanted to go fast (skiing) and I wanted to be the best," she said. "I wanted his attention." [81]


It's almost as bad as Hollywood for women trying to get their big break. If you want your big break, you'll have to give me a good break, if you know what I mean. And many women do it. Again, I'm not judging. I'm just saying. If you want to advocate for female empowerment, having sex or performing sexual favors for male superiors to advance your career is not the way to do it.


And the sexual assault in sports continues:


The woman, who is not among the alleged victims, said Charest would pick alternating favourites among his students — praising some while mocking others for their performances. "It was a roller coaster where he'd make you feel good, and then he'd destroy your confidence," said the woman... [81]


For the females readers that are not in the loop, that's called flipping the switch. It's a tactic that men regularly use to get a woman interested. They praise you and then tell you about one of your flaws. It flips the power dynamic. The woman is usually confused, but likes that fact that the guy is different and unique.


While some women are beginning to see through men's bullsh*t, most are not even close. And with the new generation of women, I don't think it's going to get any better for women. The GSIG conditioning is just too good. It's operating on a chronic level in every aspect of life for a woman. And that's not easy to ignore or break away from.


And the sexual assault in sports continues:


The court also heard from two brothers of an alleged victim who said Tuesday she'd had an abortion at the age of 15 after having unprotected sex with Charest numerous times.

...Several witnesses have testified they had sexual relationships with Charest and have said he was controlling and manipulative toward the athletes whose careers he supervised. [81]


During a two-month European ski trip in 1996, one of Bertrand Charest's ski students built an igloo out of snow outside the chalet in order to escape from him, she told his sex assault trial Tuesday.

The witness said Charest took her virginity earlier on that trip to France, in his bedroom. She was 15.

"He came and got me in my room and I remember sitting on his bed when he started kissing me," she told the court. "I don't remember how my underwear came off. It was painful."

...The witness told the court Charest would refuse to coach her if she rejected his sexual advances when she was his ski student.

"I would have liked to have had the courage to push him away but I wasn't able to," said the woman, who was the 10th alleged victim to take the stand at the trial.

"When I said no (to sex), he stopped coaching me. When I said yes, he did." [82]


Two gymnasts, including a member of the 2000 U.S. women's Olympic team, say they were sexually abused by a former longtime doctor for USA Gymnastics, court documents and interviews show.

Dr. Larry Nassar, 53, who worked for decades for the gymnastics organization until his dismissal last year, sexually groped and fondled the teenage Olympian under the guise of physical therapy during her elite career, according to a lawsuit filed last week in California. [83]


Nassar, 53, has been charged with 25 counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and two other counts of child pornography possession. More than 100 women have made complaints to Michigan State University police about the man once considered to be the country's top doctor for gymnasts. [84]


A 22-year-old woman who competed through a local club recounted how Nassar repeatedly penetrated her with ungloved hands while treating her in the basement of her home, starting when she was about 13 years old. She said she knew he did the same to other gymnasts.

"We all talked about how it was uncomfortable and we really didn't like it and it didn't help, but it happened to all of us, so we thought it was normal," she said. [85]


The gymnastics doctor at the center of a sexual-abuse scandal that rocked the Olympic sport pleaded guilty on Tuesday to federal child pornography charges after striking a deal that some of his accusers denounced as "outrageous."

The agreement also means Larry Nassar, 54, will not face federal criminal charges for allegedly molesting two former gymnasts at out-of-state and overseas locations, although prosecutors said the deal "does not preclude" them from pursuing additional charges against the doctor for other individuals. [86]


And instead of prosecuting people at the top for turning a blind eye, they're rewarded:


The former president of the U.S. gymnastics governing body received about $1 million in a severance package after stepping down amid a large-scale sexual assault scandal...

Steve Penny, who had headed the federation since 2005, resigned after the U.S. Olympic Committee voted to recommend to USA Gymnastics that he should step aside amid accusations that the organization failed to report sexual abuse. Penny's deal was reached to cover approximately two years' worth of compensation... [87]


Sadly, women athletics is just a means for men to say that they're not sexist. In reality, no one is really watching. Why not? Because this is a man's world. If women want to change that, they'll either have to take their position by force, or most likely outsmart men.


While the moral solution would be for men to recognize women as equals, without radical dualism, that's unlikely to happen (see Sexism in Philosophy Reborn Part II: Social Humanities).



I'm pushing over 19,000 words right now. I'm going to have to move a bit faster. Forgive the lack of setting the mood for the reader. Sexism is alive and well in Hollywood/Film/TV industry. And best way to show it is through pay:


Amanda Seyfried...revealed she was once paid significantly less than a male co-star.

"A few years ago, on one of my big-budget films, I found I was being paid 10 percent of what my male co-star was getting, and we were pretty even in status," she said. [88]


Kathy Griffin was an unknown comedic actress when she landed her breakout role on NBC's 1996 sitcom "Suddenly Susan." But three seasons in, she discovered a sobering truth after grilling her co-stars about their wages. "I had the second-lowest salary on the cast," she says. "Judd Nelson made four times what I made, and he ended up getting fired." When her agents balked at securing her a pay hike, she marched up to the office of Warner Bros. TV chief Peter Roth to demand a raise..."I got a raise," she says. "I still didn't make equal to what the guys were making."

For those who aren't celebrities, the scarcity of jobs in the industry drives women in Hollywood to take whatever offers come their way. Female directors in television worked on only 16% of the 3,900 episodes produced last season, according to the Directors Guild of America. That's still an improvement over the movies, where women made just 7% of the top-grossing 250 films last year... [89]


As the industry polishes gongs in preparation for another awards season, however, there is no full-blown feminist insurrection. Calls to end inequality still reverberate but have yet to translate into visible, concrete change.

...the wage issue is part of the larger gender problem in the mainstream film industry. Until women are considered to be equal players, their pay will most likely be lower than that of their male colleagues."

...Sharon Stone recently recalled weeping over unequal salaries after the release of Basic Instinct in 1992. "No one wanted to pay me. I remember sitting in my kitchen with my manager and just crying and saying: 'I'm not going to work until I get paid.' I still got paid so much less than any men."

...Rooney Mara, the Oscar-nominated star of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, revealed that male co-stars had earned double her salary. "It's just a reality of the time that we live in. To me, it's frustrating, but at the same time, I'm just grateful to be getting paid at all for what I do." [90]


My anecdotal experience tells me that women don't express as much confidence in negotiations and/or are less willing to be confrontational in the face of a low offer. In fact, Jennifer Lawrence, in her celebrated essay on the topic, said that one reason she was paid less than her American Hustle male co-stars was that "I failed as a negotiator because I gave up early." Natalie Portman, regarding being paid less than Ashton Kutcher on No Strings Attached, told Marie Claire, "I wasn't as pissed as I should have been…The disparity is crazy."

"As a negotiator," Erika told me, "I tend to feel overly protective toward my female clients, who are underselling themselves, whereas men very rarely question their own qualification and assume they are entitled to the maximum that can be gotten. [91]


"Compared to men, in most professions, women make 80 cents to the dollar," Portman told Marie Claire. "In Hollywood we are making 30 cents to the dollar."

The 35-year-old star – who won a best actress Oscar in 2011 for her role in "Black Swan" and plays Jackie Kennedy in a forthcoming biopic about the former U.S. First Lady - said the pay disparity was "crazy". [92]


The BBC's release of their highest paid stars' salaries has shone a light on the entertainment industry’s inequality. While the corporation's highest paid male star, Chris Evans, receives an annual income between £2,200,00 and £2,249,999, the highest paid woman, Claudia Winkleman, amasses just £450,000 to £499,999.

It may not have featured so prominently in the news, but Hollywood has a pretty striking gender pay gap of its own. The highest paid female actor in the world is Jennifer Lawrence, who stars in The Hunger Games and last year earnt $46 million.

Not too shabby, but it is significantly lower than the world's highest paid male actor Dwayne Johnson, who earned $64 million. [93]


But Gal Gadot says she is 'grateful and happy' for her $300,000 Wonder Woman salary even though fans think she deserved more.

...Her deal was part of a three-film agreement that included Batman Vs Superman and Justice League at $300,000 apiece. [94]


...his salary [Robert Downey Jr.] reportedly increased dramatically from one film to the next. For 2008's Iron Man, for instance, Downey Jr reportedly 'only' pocketed around $500,000 – a salary that would likely have seemed fairly generous at the time, considering he'd largely been jettisoned by Hollywood casting agents at that point.

By the time 2010's Iron Man 2 came along, though, Downey Jr's stock had soared – right alongside Iron Man's box office takings - and he apparently raked in a much more substantial $10 million. Even that, though, was dwarfed by his reputed salary for 2013's Iron Man 3 – a frankly enormous $50 million. Which, assuming the figures are roughly correct, leaves RDJ with a total Iron Man-related income of roughly $60.5 million. [95]


Umm...the 2017 film Wonder Woman earns over $820 million (USD) globally. [96] The 2008 film, Iron Man only makes $585 million (USD) globally. [97]


I don't think you realize how ludicrous $300K (USD) is for a lead role in a summer blockbuster movie. Generally speaking, Hollywood writers earn about $100K (USD) more or less just for a movie script. But there are screenplays that blow Gadot’s bullsh*t $300K completely out of the water. Allow me to show you.


*All amounts are in US dollars.

*All amounts are relative to their own dollars at the time and have not been adjusted for inflation.

*All amounts are rounded up to one decimal point.


Movie                                                   Cost of Script                     Global Box Office Revenue

Basic Instinct (1992)                        $3 million. [98]                    $352.9 million. [99]

A Knight's Tale (2001)                      $2.5 million. [98]               $117.5 million. [100]

Panic Room (2002)                          $4 million. [98]                   $196.4 million. [101]

Evan Almighty (2007)                        $2.5 million. [98]               $173.4 million. [102]


Gadot failed to push the envelope and settled for less than what she's worth.


While the gender gap is an overarching issue, it's significant because Hollywood is an industry of images. In the eyes of an occultist or new age believer, images are esoteric in nature and capable of becoming the foundation of an ideology or a movement.


Unfortunately, in this case, the ideology is one of female suppression. Even if a woman gets a lead role, her character is usually sexualized or framed to fit the feminist framework of once a victim always a victim (Sigourney Weaver and Meryl Streep are the exceptions).


In case you're not seeing the overall picture, allow me to be clear. Aside from sexualizing women and portraying them as victims, by paying women less and giving them fewer leads/opportunities, Hollywood is devaluing women in general.


Women in Hollywood don't have equal value relative to their male peers. And that's not accidental. That's intentional. Why? Because that's the way the GSIG script is written. And Hollywood is their favorite tool to condition the global public to accept GSIG ideologies (see The Deep State).


Worse, even if A and B list actresses stand together in solidarity and refuse to accept low payments, the producers will just bring in new, talented, and beautiful actresses from Los Angeles, New York, Toronto, and Vancouver.


These new actresses, even with all their beauty and skill, are still struggling to get their big break. And they would most likely accept 1/10 of the pay that A and B list actresses are offered for lead roles.


And most moviegoers will still watch movies without the usual A or B list actress. Why? Because most men (and even some women) value male actors more than female ones. It is a pickle no doubt about it.


And just in case you still don't believe me about the deep and chronic sexism in Hollywood, there's always the casting couch. The term refers to the fact that many male producers will give an upcoming actress her big break only if she has sex with the producer or does sexual favors for him. Don't believe me? See for yourself:


After Capp - who would have been 45 at the time - arrived, the actress said he 'disrobed' from his business clothes before entering the room in a dressing gown.

'I got the picture there, and I thought, "I’m in trouble. Where’s the door? I don't want to do this."

...'And then I sat down and he wanted me to give him a kiss, and I went, "I don’t do this. I’m sorry."

...He immediately turned on her, telling her 'just go back, you're never going to make anything of your life,' adding that she would have to marry a Jewish dentist to make money. [103]


It seems every female actor of a certain status has perched uncomfortably on the casting couch at one time or another. Gwyneth Paltrow, Charlize Theron, Helen Mirren, Alison Brie, Susan Sarandon and Emmy Rossum have all recalled creepy come-ons from powerful men that took place early in their careers. In an interview in March, Jane Fonda revealed that she had once been fred "because I wouldn't sleep with my boss"...

..."You can go to the union and say I've experienced this, but they say: 'Well, you should get a lawyer.' Even if you could aford a lawyer – and a lot of this is happening to actors who are still making their way – your career would be over. So it's a no-win situation. The culture is male-dominated and if you're a female in the industry, part of what you're obliged to understand is you've got to suck it up, or move on to another profession."

...The big names have brought casting-couch culture to wider attention, but, for most actors, going public about such an experience without jeopardising their careers remains a virtual impossibility. [104]


How do you get women to accept less pay and stay silent about sexual harassment or assault? Thousands of years of chronic GSIG conditioning. This is what I've been trying to tell you.


GSIGs have rigged the entire system against women for thousands of years via religion, science, atheism, academia, and feminism. And you need to realize that this isn't accidental. All of it is intentional. How long will you close your eyes to the intentional suppression of female empowerment?


Contrary to what you may believe, most male producers in Hollywood see women as commodities that can be bought, sold, and traded for market price or below. To be fair to women, I can understand why these actresses will still play the game.


It's a sexist patriarchal system but it's not going to change. If I don't do it, the next woman auditioning will do it. I might keep my principles, but I'll be watching her on TV as a waitress waiting for my big break. F*ck that. I'll just do it and suck it up.


The same is true of Harvey Weinstein. Weinstein is one of the most powerful people in Hollywood. The entire trillion dollar film industry...all of the A-list actors...all of the Democrats...all of the liberals...all of the entertainment reporters...all of them turn a blind eye to Weinstein's alleged sexual harassment.


This is the result of liberal conditioning. You can believe X, but implement Y in action. Like most liberals, ideologies and actions get lost in translation. Then again, many liberals are completely lost in their ideologies.


I'd bet money that if Weinstein took  a lie detector they would find that he believes that he's god's gift to women and has deep sense of respect for them. That's how bad the sexism is. Men delude themselves into thinking that they're helping women when they're only using them as a means to an end. This is the fruit of liberal ideologies in action in the 21st century.


Women have intentionally been dealt a sh*tty hand for over 5000 years by GSIGs. And while the future can change via radical dualism and skoparxism, it's not going to happen at tomorrow's casting call. This is a competitive and cruel world for many.


And yet our WE problems are insignificant to the problems that people face in developing nations. Opportunities that you may see as sexist or racist are insignificant in a developing nation. Even if the opportunity breeds sexism and/or racism, most people in developing nations would jump at the chance if it means that they could live in the US or Canada on a permanent basis.


As we (in the West) complain about the rampant and chronic sexism and racism in WE society, many people are still struggling just to survive in developing nations. These people would literally kill you if they could switch places and have your life.


They would trade their sh*tty developing nation life for your unfair racist and sexist life any day of the week. At the end of the day, as a rational and compassionate human being, how do you square that? Just that luck of the draw in being born in WE society.


If you believe that, you're basically saying that your life automatically has a higher value than their life because you're born in WE society. That's pushing sociopathic levels.


But then again, if you believe that debt is the natural way of the world...that women are naturally inferior to men...that white people are superior to non-whites...that self-interest and your selfish desires are prized characteristics of human were a sociopath from the starting gate.


Silicon Valley

While Silicon Valley excels in innovations, it's only male innovations that matter in this patriarchal game. It's not that this is just a boys club. It's worse than that. It's the ideology that women in Silicon Valley are incapable of making a valuable contribution.


Aside from GSIG suppression of female empowerment, Silicon Valley itself conditions women to be inferior to men. Don't believe me? See for yourself:


One female entrepreneur recounted how she had been propositioned by a Silicon Valley venture capitalist while seeking a job with him, which she did not land after rebuffing him. Another showed the increasingly suggestive messages she had received from a start-up investor. And one chief executive described how she had faced numerous sexist comments from an investor while raising money for her online community website.

...The tech industry has long suffered a gender imbalance, with companies such as Google and Facebook acknowledging how few women were in their ranks. Some female engineers have started to speak out on the issue, including a former Uber engineer who detailed a pattern of sexual harassment at the company, setting off internal investigations that spurred the resignation in June of Uber’s chief executive, Travis Kalanick.

...Most venture capitalists and entrepreneurs are men, with female entrepreneurs receiving $1.5 billion in funding last year versus $58.2 billion for men... [105]


Sexual harassment is pervasive, with one survey earlier this year reporting 60 percent of women in tech saying they had received unwanted sexual advances. Called "Elephant in the Valley," the survey included over 200 women with at least 10 years of experience working in technology. The majority of respondents — 91 percent — live in the San Francisco Bay Area/Silicon Valley.

...The report has left Silicon Valley reeling, with many wondering who in the industry is being complicit and turning a blind eye to unacceptable behavior. [106]


Qualcomm has agreed to pay $19.5 million to settle a looming gender discrimination lawsuit that alleged women engineers faced systemic roadblocks to equal pay and promotions at the company.

...The complaint claimed Qualcomm has a male-dominated culture, with women holding less than 15 percent of what the company defines as senior leadership positions.

In its chip making unit — the largest in terms of employment — women hold less than 10 percent of director or senior director jobs.

...Qualcomm also uses a sponsorship system where supervisors recommend workers for promotions, instead of posting available jobs for everyone to apply. The system helped create a glass ceiling for women, the complaint alleged. [107]


A former female software engineer at Twitter filed a class action lawsuit this week claiming the company's promotion process unlawfully favors men…

The suit alleges that Twitter relies on a "black box" style of promotion, wherein employees are notified of open positions via a mysterious "shoulder tap" process. This fraternity-esque promotional style takes the place of any formal job postings...

...Promotion into Twitter's senior technical positions is based on subjective judgments, by committees that are comprised of and dependent on upper management at Twitter, and predominantly male. These judgments are tainted with conscious or unconscious prejudices and gender-based stereotypes, which explains why so few women employees at Twitter advance to senior and leadership positions. [108]


Within the past few months, Google has been accused of having "systematic compensation disparities" between men and women in the company; Susan Fowler Rigetti published a 2,800-word blog post containing allegations against Uber, leading to two investigations, 20 dismissals and the resignation of Uber executive Amit Singhal over previous sexual harassment allegations.

...In her lawsuit, the plaintiff, Elizabeth Scott, claims that UploadVR had "purposefully and expressly created a 'boy's club' environment", with commonplace behaviour including "degrading" behaviour towards female employees and even a "room to encourage sexual intercourse at the workplace".

...only 20 per cent of Congress is female and across the board, only 5 per cent of Fortune 500 companies have a female CEO. On average, women receive 63 per cent lower salary offers than men for the same job at the same company.

...the Department of Labour contests Google's claims, arguing that through its own analysis of Google's finances, there are "systematic compensation disparities" between men and women in the company.

...The government’s analysis at this point indicates that discrimination against women in Google is quite extreme, even in this industry." Similarly, Janette Wipper testified in court on Friday that this discrimination occurred "pretty much across the entire workforce." [109]


AJ Vandermeyden, a female engineer, had publicly accused Elon Musk's company of sexual harassment and discrimination.

But soon after, Tesla fired her, accusing her of pursuing a "miscarriage of justice" by filing a lawsuit that alleged "pervasive harassment" and pay discrimination.

"They just want to absolutely crush anyone who speaks up," said Vandermeyden, 33, seated inside her attorney's San Francisco office on a recent afternoon. "I spoke up, and I was made a sacrificial lamb for it. It’s a scary precedent."

Vandermeyden detailed the painful experience of losing a job she loved while facing harsh personal attacks by Tesla in the media. [110]


Even if Tesla is found guilty or settles the lawsuit, will climate change believers ditch their new Tesla cars? No. Why not? Because sexism isn't a priority for them. Climate change believers are under the delusion that they're saving the planet and the human race by buying electric cars.


Sexism doesn't compare to climate change. We have bigger fish to fry. In reality, it's the social issues like racism and sexism that make a difference in humanity's growth and development, not technological innovations.


But don't waste your time telling this to climate change believers. They're cracked in the head. They've already gone down the climate change rabbit hole but their mind never came back out into reality.


Climate change believers can buy all the electric cars they want but the buses, planes, cruise ships, and mid-size to giant delivery trucks will still be running on diesel (see The Environmental Movement).


In Silicon Valley, most men believe that only they can create technology of the future. Only men can save humanity from itself. Women can cheer us on. They can make sure that we're in the best state of mind while they serve us as a sex object.


This is what the real Silicon Valley looks like. How long will it take for you to realize that sexism in Silicon Valley is just part of the GSIG suppression of female empowerment?


Aside from ideologies as the primary cause, sexism in Silicon Valley is also the result of liberal/feminist conditioning. The blatant sexism (not a unconscious bias or misogyny) in silicon Valley is not the result of he came from a broken home, or he was sexually abused. Sorry, but the reason is liberal conditioning. Allow me to explain.


When a man is raised in liberal conditioning through his primary, secondary, and university years, it more or less turns them into manwhores. Yes, all men are capable of going beyond their liberal conditioning, but why would they want to do that?


This liberal conditioning teaches them to screw as many women as they want. And women allow themselves to get plowed again and again because of their own liberal conditioning that teaches them that sexual promiscuity equals empowerment.


And remember, men (including me) have practically no respect for sluts. But sluts on the other hand respect manwhores. That's how deep and bad the conditioning is. Hence, most liberal women will give in sexually and/or turn a blind eye to sexism for the sake of their career. Why? Because they know that women who speak out are more or less blacklisted from managerial level jobs in Silicon Valley.


Why are they blacklisted? Because most of the men at the executive level don't care about what sluts think of them. They only see women as sex objects to ease the stress of men who are doing the real work. Hence, they throw a few million dollars to settle the lawsuit and shut the women up. Sadly, most of the women take it and prevent a full blown trial from taking place.


To be fair, it's quite understandable why most women settle their sexist lawsuits. While the accusations may be lured, most of the accusations wouldn't meet the standard of evidence of beyond reasonable doubt in the courts.


Hence, going to trial is more of a symbolic action vs. winning the actual case. And so they take the money, tuck their tails between their legs and quietly move on. But on the other hand, if more of these cases went to trial (but lose), the damage could still snowball into significant reform.


The only question is how long women in Silicon Valley will put up with this sexism and settle their cases. If it's forever, then sexism in Silicon Valley will continue forever.


Worse, most investors don't care if their Silicon Valley corporation settles their sexist lawsuits. Why not? Because most Silicon Valley investors are manwhores themselves and see women as disposable sex objects. They just can't say that out loud. But that's what they're saying when they don't pull their investments from the corporations.


While the perpetrators at the senior and executive level are definitely responsible for their sexist actions, when other companies blacklist the women...when the investors choose to stay in...all of them are turning a blind eye to these sexist actions. And that's not accidental. That's intentional.


And no, there's no amount of primary, secondary, or post-secondary education that will educate the sexism out of them.


No amount of MBAs or Phds in Silicon Valley will change the GSIG script of suppressing female empowerment and seeing women as sexual objects for the pleasure of men.


No amount of HR policies will make a significant dent in battling sexism.


No amount of sexual harassment workshops will have any significant effect on ending sexism in Silicon Valley or sexism in general.


While GSIGs won't stop pushing their female suppression script, the only solution is to counter that script with another ideology. And hopefully, that ideology will be radical dualism (see Philosophy of Mind in Philosophy Reborn Part I: Purpose and Autoimmune Diseases for Everyone in Part IV: Naturally Unhealthy Big Pharma & Big Media).


Western-European (WE) Society

And last but not least is the subtle and not so subtle GSIG conditioning of women throughout WE society, with the most obvious one being make-up. The fact that men expect women to wear make-up on a regular basis is truly a sexist ideology.


Give the men something nice to look at or you're of no value. Of course, men don't usually say that out loud, but that's what many of them think.


Personally, I don't believe women should be wearing any make-up at all. I don't want my future wife to wear make-up (not even for special occasions). No lipstick, no mascara, no blush, no foundation, no eye liner...none of it. Why not? Because wearing make-up is a patriarchal ideology for the benefit of men.


Never mind the unnatural ingredients in make-up. Stick to coconut or olive oil as a natural moisturizer for your skin. If you have money, feel free to look into shea butter, castor oil, argon oil, or jojoba oil.


Remember, most men don't wake up in the morning and put on make-up before they step out of the house. Men can wake up, wash their face, brush their teeth, throw on some old pants and t-shirt, walk out the door and feel 100% confident in picking up a woman/asking her out on a date.


Why? Because of their self-confidence. And their self-confidence is a direct result of their strong character. They don't need make up to feel attractive. They don't need make-up in order to be confident. They already have it on the inside.


But I'm wearing it for myself. If you're a woman and wear make-up in order to feel beautiful for yourself, you have more pressing issues than you think. Work on developing your character and purpose in life instead of wearing layers of unnatural ingredients on your face every day.


If you're not sure where to begin I recommend radical dualism (see Philosophy of Mind in Philosophy Reborn Part I: Purpose and Autoimmune Diseases for Everyone in Part IV: Naturally Unhealthy Big Pharma & Big Media).


And then we have the fashion industry. The fact that many women are a slave to fashion doesn't give me hope for female empowerment. If you don't feel beautiful wearing sweat pants and a t-shirt...that's very sad. If you only feel beautiful wearing layers of make-up and the newest're lost in your WE patriarchal cage.


And then we have high heels. Hollywood and the fashion industry are the strongest advocates for women to wear high heels to look and feel beautiful. In reality, it's just patriarchal GSIG conditioning. If you're wearing high heels, it means that you've given into patriarchal conditioning.


Worse, women in Hollywood, fashion, and women in general tell their daughters to wear high heels (for special occasions or the workplace). This is men getting women to condition other women to fall into line with GSIG conditioning in suppressing female empowerment. Truly disgusting and sad.


Every time I see a woman wearing high heels in public I frown. Sometimes, I don't even look at people in public. I just see through them. It's an art.


And then you have the sexist comments from comedians that reinforce GSIG suppression of female empowerment. In May 2017 Bill Maher implies that Ivanka Trump is in the White House to pacify her father via incest/sexual acts. [111] He's really saying that Ivanka Trump only has value as a sexual commodity to pacify her crazy father. All with liberals and Democrats cheering him on. Truly disgusting.


JImmy Dore, a comedian and commentator for liberal alternative media outlet the Young Turks (TYT) calls Ann Coulter a cunt in his standup comedy. [112] But it's supposedly okay because it's either against Trump, conservatives, or Republicans. Disgusting.


And then we have women and their age. You can't ask me how old I am. How dare you ask that question. Sigh. If you ever hear this, it means that the person, usually a woman, is self-conscious about her looks (even with make-up on).


The fact that middle aged women are too self-conscious to tell a person their real age is due to patriarchal GSIG conditioning. And sadly, for the most part, middle-aged women happily go along with this conditioning.


I'm not going to sugarcoat the problem. Real female empowerment is an uphill battle with a 99.9% rate of failure. Though there are many liberal men in society that want women to be free from religion, they still want these women to be subservient to them.


They still want to watch their porn, have a wife, and have a mistress on the side if possible. Today's liberalism, feminism, science, and atheism are nothing more than new GSIG cages for female empowerment.


How long will it take for women to refuse to accept these circumstances as natural or the norm?

How long will it take for women to stop wearing make-up and high heels?

How long will it take for women to refuse to be a victim in feminist ideologies?

How long will it take for women to stop playing the victim card and wanting a man to protect them?

How long will it take for women to take personal responsibility for their own actions?

How long will it take for women to realize that science and atheism is just another cage for women?

How long will it take for women to realize that the entire game and every aspect of it has been intentional rigged against them for at least 5000 years of recorded history?

How long will it take for women to take significant action to end patriarchal power structures?




[1] After gang rape trial, Austria toughens up on migrants denied asylum. Associated Press. March 5, 2017.

[2] Al-Othman, Hannah. Asylum seeker is arrested after 'abusing EIGHTEEN women' during a two-hour train journey in Germany. Daily Mail. February 8, 2017.

[3] Shaheen, Kareem. Dozens of Syrians forced into sexual slavery in derelict Lebanese house. Guardian. April 30, 2016.

[4] Callimachi, Rukmini. To Maintain Supply of Sex Slaves, ISIS Pushes Birth Control. New York Times. March 12, 2016.

[5] Ulrich, Amanda. Women say Muslim-majority areas in French suburbs are now NO-GO areas for females where they are banned from mixing with men and must dress conservatively. Daily Mail. December 14, 2016.

[6] German prosecutors press murder charges in Freiburg student's killing. DW. March 30, 2017.

[7] Hall, John. Saudi preacher who 'raped and tortured' his five -year-old daughter to death is released after paying 'blood money.' Independent. February 4, 2013.

[8] Muslim Swedish pol quits after refusing to shake women’s hands. Agence France-Presse. April 20, 2016.

[9] Nair, Roshini. Port Coquitlam imam convicted of sexual assault sentenced to three and a half years in jail. CBC News. May 22, 2017.

[10] McLaughlin, Elly and Parry, Hannah. Michigan doctor and her cohorts may have cut the genitals of as many as a HUNDRED girls, prosecutors tell the court in historic case against practice. Daily Mail. June 8, 2017.

[11] Non-Muslim Americans wear hijab in solidarity for World Hijab Day. BBC News. February 2, 2017.

[12] German Women Against Trump Chant "Allahu Akbar." YouTube video. Posted by: NrxZionistLibertarian, January 22, 2017.

[13] Gayle, Damien. Dalai Lama's 'sexist' quip ruffles equality activists. Guardian. September 24, 2015.

[14] Pattanaik, Devdutt. There's a misogynist aspect of Buddhism that nobody talks about. Quartz. January 6, 2016.

[15] Ross, Eleanor. Five Times India's Textbooks Have Been Terribly Sexist. Newsweek. April 17, 2017.

[16] Madhok, Diksha. Indian women will never be equal as long as these 9 laws remain on the books. Quartz. June 25, 2014.

[17] Hundal, Sunny. India's bitter culture of rape and violence. Guardian. January 3, 2013.

[18] Burke, Dave. Devout Sikh, 45, who attempted to rape a woman with Down's syndrome after following her home 'may have other victims.' Daily Mail. October 12, 2016.

[19] Two Sikh priests jailed for rape of Glasgow prostitute. BBC News. November 22, 2012.

[20] Kershner, Isabel. Israeli Woman Who Sued El Al for Sexism Wins Landmark Ruling. New York Times. June 21, 2017.

[21] Despite Livni's Rise, Sexism Alive in Israel. Newsweek. September 23, 2008.

[22] Bourgeois, Roy. Sexism and the Roman Catholic Church. SF Gate. June 8, 2012.

[23] Kirchgaessner, Stephanie. Pope Francis says women will never be Roman Catholic priests. Guardian. November 1, 2016.

[24] Bruni, Frank. Catholicism Undervalues Women. New York Times. May 6, 2015.

[25] Fenton, Siobhan. Christian fundamentalist schools teaching girls they must obey men. Independent. June 5, 2016.

[26] Martin, Jennifer C. How Sexism in the Church Almost Ruined My Life. Jezebel. October 26, 2015.

[27] Exum, Andrew. Mike Pence and the 'Billy Graham Rule.' Atlantic. March 30, 2017.

[28] Megyn Kelly Visits Alex Jones At Infowars Studios. YouTube video. Posted by: The Alex Jones Channel, June 6, 2017.

[29] Megyn Kelly In Alex Jones' Studio. YouTube video. Posted by: The Alex Jones Channel, June 12, 2017.

[30] Here Are More Sexist And Racist Tweets Trump Ally Roger Stone Might Want To Delete. Media Matters. April 22, 2016.

[31] Kounalakis, Markos. Commentary: The feminist was a spook. Sacramento Bee. October 25, 2015.

[32] Winston, Kimberly. Do Atheists Have A Sexism Problem? Religion News Service. September 15, 2011.

[33] Marcotte, Amanda. Atheism's shocking woman problem: What’s behind the misogyny of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris? Alternet. October 3, 2014.

[34] Pollitt, Katha. Atheists Show Their Sexist Side. Nation. September 24, 2014.

[35] Watson, Rebecca. It Stands to Reason, Skeptics Can Be Sexist Too. Slate. October 24, 2012.

[36] Lee, Adam. Richard Dawkins has lost it: ignorant sexism gives atheists a bad name. Guardian. September 18, 2014.

[37] Smurthwaite, Kate. Atheism is an old boys' club. More women should admit to being Godless. Telegraph. January 7, 2016.

[38] Bianco, Marcie. Brazen sexism is pushing women out of America's atheism movement. Quartz. February 12, 2016.

[39] Bernstein, Rachel. PLOS ONE ousts reviewer, editor after sexist peer-review storm. Science Magazine. May 1, 2015.

[40] Erickson, Amanda. A woman called the police about her stalker 125 times. Then he stabbed her. Washington Post. July 1, 2017.

[41] MacKinnon, Catou. After 4 years of waiting, her alleged abuser was finally brought to trial — then charges were stayed. CBC News. June 12, 2017.

[42] Daly, Michael. Silicon Valley CEO Pleads 'No Contest' to Abusing His Wife—and Is Offered a Deal for Less Than 30 Days in Jail. Daily Beast. April 17, 2017.

[43] Man, 21 who admitted raping a 12-year-old walks free. Daily Mail. March17, 2017.

[44] Doolittle, Robyn. The Challenge of Handling Sex Assault in Canada's North. Globe and Mail. February 28, 2017.

[45] Montana Supreme Court reprimands judge for rape comments. Associated Press. July 23, 2014.

[46] Judge Jeanine Howard sparks outrage for saying sexually assaulted 14-year-old 'not the victim she claimed to be.' News Corp Australia. May 5, 2014.

[47] Keeler, Nola. New sexual assault trial ordered on grounds Edmonton judge relied on myths, stereotypes. CBC News. July 19, 2017.

[48] Ortiz, Erik. North Carolina Legal Loophole Prevents Women From Withdrawing Consent to Sex. NBC News. June 23, 2017.

[49] Al-Othman, Hannah. Estranged wife of healthcare millionaire demands $5MILLION a year in divorce battle so she can keep her three homes, two boats and trips on private jets. Daily Mail. November 2, 2016.

[50] Marrazzo, Amanda. Cancer center founder's divorce drags on after lawyer misses court deadlines. Chicago Tribune. April 26, 2017.

[51] Spillett, Richard. I've won how much! Delight of ex-model who wanted £196million from her Saudi billionaire ex as she gets 'just' £75million - barely enough to pay for ONE of the houses she demanded. Daily Mail. July 8, 2016.

[52] Freeman, Hadley. Mariah Carey wants $50m from her ex – and it only makes me love her more. Guardian. November 12, 2016.

[53] Millionaire tycoon's ex-wife awarded six figure payout even though he made his fortune a decade after they split. Telegraph. June 10, 2016.

[54] Sawer, Patrick. Judge orders City trader to pay ex-wife £453m in biggest UK divorce award. Telegraph. May 11, 2017.

[55] Crawford, Alison. Bob Paulson apologizes for 'egregious behaviour,' nudity at RCMP bomb school. CBC News. July 14, 2016.

[56] Milewski, Terry. Harassment in Canada's military tolerated by leadership, former justice finds. CBC News. April 30, 2015.

[57] Perkel, Colin. Landmark deal in RCMP sexual-harassment class action wins court approval. Canadian Press. May 31, 2017.

[58] Poisson, Jayme and McLean, Jesse. Peel police’s sexual-harassment records revealed: records. Toronto Star. November 30, 2015.

[59] Sexual harassment lawsuit against former RCMP spokesman Tim Shields settled. Canadian Press. February 18, 2017.

[60] Atwan, Shachar. Sexism and Aggression: What We Learn From Israeli Army T-shirts. Haaretz. January 2, 2017.

[61] Gillis, Wendy. Study highlights barriers faced by police officers who become mothers. Toronto Star. April 17, 2017.

[62] Bueckert, Kate. Women claim workplace sexual assault, harassment in $167M lawsuit against Waterloo Regional Police. CBC News. June 1, 2017.

[63] Cudmore, James. Royal Military College head apologizes for cadets' behaviour at harassment seminars. CBC News. May 21, 2015.

[64] Butler, Colin. Male police culture puts women at a disadvantage, study suggests. CBC News. September 1, 2016.

[65] Plato. Timaeus. 42a

[66] Timaeus. 42c

[67] Plato. Laws. 781b

[68] Martosko, David. Hillary Clinton says all female sexual-assault accusers 'have the right to be believed' but skips over accused child rapist she defended in the 1970s – and what of Bill's 'bimbo eruptions'? Daily Mail. September 15, 2015.

[69] Twohey, Megan. How Hillary Clinton Grappled With Bill Clinton's Infidelity, and His Accusers. New York Times. October 2, 2016.

[70] Melania Trump and Hillary Clinton: Shaming accusers? BBC News. October 18, 2016.

[71] Sanchez, Raf. Monica Lewinsky: Hillary Clinton 'blamed the woman' for Bill Clinton's affair. Telegraph. May 6, 2014.

[72] Atlas Shrugged: Part I. 2011. Box Office Mojo.

[73] Atlas Shrugged: Part II. 2012. Box Office Mojo.

[74] Atlas Shrugged: Part III Who Is John Galt. 2014. Box Office Mojo.

[75] Edell, Celia. Here's What Sexism in Higher Ed Looks Like – And Why It's a Problem. Everyday Feminism. February 24, 2017.

[76] Academia needs to confront sexism. Science Magazine. July 14, 2017.

[77] Bates, Laura. Female academics face huge sexist bias – no wonder there are so few of them. Guardian. February 13, 2015.

[78] Sherouse, Beth. The Price Women Pay: Sexism and Power in Academia. Auntie Bellum Magazine: An Honest, Unapologetic Voice for Southern Women. June 27, 2017.

[79] Meara, Ellen. Yes, I Got Tenure — And A Lot Of Grief Along The Way. WBUR. March 29, 2016.

[80] Canadian ski federation accused of muzzling athletes who were allegedly abused. La Presse. February 25, 2017.

[81] Woman says ex-ski coach Bertrand Charest stuck hands down her pants when she was 16. Canadian Press. March 8, 2017.

[82] Witness at Charest trial says ex-ski coach slept with her when she was 15. Canadian Press. March 14, 2017.

[83] Olympic medallist accuses USA Gymnastics physician of sexual abuse. Associated Press. September 12, 2016.

[84] Murphy, Dan. Testimony against Larry Nassar continues at sexual abuse hearing. ESPN. May 26, 2017.

[85] Connor, Tracey. Gymnastics Doctor Larry Nassar Faces Sex-Abuse Accusers in Court. NBC News. May 12, 2017.

[86] Connor, Tracey and Lane, Christopher. Gymnastics Abuse Scandal: Dr. Larry Nassar Pleads Guilty to Child Porn. NBC News. July 11, 2017.

[87] Quigley, Aidan. After Sexual Assault Scandal, Ousted U.S. Gymnastics Leader Gets Big Payday. Newsweek. June 2, 2017.

[88] Amanda Seyfried: "I Was Being Paid 10 Percent Of What My Male Co-Star Was Getting." Hollywood Reporter. July 14, 2015.

[89] Setoodeh, Ramin. Equal Pay Revolution: How Top Actresses Are Finally Fighting Back. Variety. November 10, 2015.

[90] Carroll, Rory. Women in Hollywood: plenty of talk but little change on equal pay. Guardian. December 29, 2015.

[91] Polone, Gavin. Gavin Polone: Why Women Really Make Less Money in Hollywood (and How to Fight Back). Hollywood Reporter. March 16, 2017.

[92] Mintz, Luke. Hollywood's gender pay gap is 'crazy': Natalie Portman. Reuters. January 12, 2017.

[93] Spratt, James. Hollywood's pay gap: is the film industry becoming more equal? London Evening Standard. July 21, 2017.

[94] Whiteman, Bobbie. 'Grateful and happy!': Gal Gadot says she is content with her less than super-hero sized $300,000 paycheck for blockbuster Wonder Woman. Daily Mail. June 28, 2017.

[95] Browne, Kit Simpson. Just How Much Was Robert Downey Jr Paid For His Avengers Appearances? Movie Pilot. July 8, 2016.

[96] Wonder Woman. 2017. Box Office Mojo.

[97] Iron Man. 2008. Box Office Mojo.

[98] Reddish, David. The 15 Most Expensive Screenplays Ever...And the Stories Behind Them. Screen Rant. June 19, 2016.

[99] Basic Instinct. 1992. Box Office Mojo.

[100] A Knight’s Tale. 2001. Box Office Mojo.

[101] Panic Room. 2002. Box Office Mojo.

[102] Evan Almighty. 2007. Box Office Mojo.

[103] McDonagh, Ross. 'I'm in trouble...where's the door?' Goldie Hawn recalls casting couch encounter with 45-year-old cartoonist when she was just 19. Daily Mail. May 11, 2017.

[104] Jones, Ellen E. 'We warn each other': how casting-couch culture endures in Hollywood. Guardian. July 18, 2017.

[105] Benner, Katie. Women in Tech Speak Frankly on Culture of Harassment. New York Times. June 30, 2017.

[106] Newcomb, Alyssa. Silicon Valley Grapples With How to Fix a Sexist Culture. NBC News. July 26, 2017.

[107] Freeman, Mike. Qualcomm enters $19.5 million gender bias settlement. San Diego Union Tribune. July 26, 2016.

[108] Plaugic, Lizzie. Twitter is facing a class action lawsuit for gender discrimination. Verge. March 21, 2015.

[109] Simon-Lewis, Alexandra. What is Silicon Valley's problem with women? Wired. June 12, 2017.

[110] Levin, Sam. She took on Tesla for discrimination. Now others are speaking up. 'It's too big to deny.' Guardian. July 5, 2017.

[111] Wright, Matthew. Real Time host Bill Maher is accused of crossing the line with tasteless incest joke about Ivanka Trump. Daily Mail. May 7, 2017.

[112] Jimmy Dore: Sentenced to Live. New Wave Entertainment Television. 2015.