Female supremacism, part 3 of 4
Tunia via channel A. S.
Posted on July 26, 2025
My dearest brothers and sisters,
This is Tunia speaking. I love you so very much.
Welcome to part three of this series. In part one, I argued that your society is female supremacist. In part two, I argued that everyone already realizes that women are better in certain substantial ways, therefore to avoid female supremacism you have to acknowledge that men too are better in certain substantial ways.
We’ll look at two ways in which men are better in this part, and we’ll look at two more ways in the final part four.
That said, we are just talking about averages here. Not all men and not all women are like this. So it’s important to treat people as individuals, rather than as someone whose qualities are predetermined by their gender.
That said, here’s the first way in which men are better:
Men are on average better protectors.
Other than men just being better at fighting, this is also illustrated by the fact that men are mostly anti-illegal immigration while women are often pro-illegal immigration.
So, men are better protectors. This seems pretty self-evident. On to the next point:
Men on average care more about being logical. Women on average care more about achieving emotional goals, and logic is mostly a tool that’s used to achieve emotional goals. If women must choose between being logical versus reaching emotional goals, women often prioritize their emotional goals.
Examples of women’s emotional goals are “feeling good about myself” or “feeling safe” or “securing some benefit for myself” or “making sure my family is doing well” or “promoting the wellbeing of women” or “helping out some other person or group in need” or “protecting nature.”
So women’s emotional goals are not necessarily selfish. In fact they may very well be altruistic.
But an issue is that women’s emotions often don’t consider long-term consequences or second-order effects. For example, women lobbied against nuclear energy in Germany, so Germany closed nuclear power plants. Then later Germany had to re-open coal power plants, which do more harm to nature and kill more people via air pollution. Even with that, Germany is still in economic decline in part because it lacks cheap energy.
Another issue is that women tend to be much more emotionally invested in helping women than they are emotionally invested in helping men (or even being fair towards men). So some women’s emotional goals lead them to pursue anti-male pro-female discrimination.
Is that logical, or beneficial in the long term? No. Is that morally correct? No. Is that nonetheless some women’s emotional goal? Yes.
Currently women often feel horribly unsafe (physically, financially, emotionally, socially) and so their emotional goals tend to be securing safety for women.
But unfortunately, some women try to accomplish that in “men bad, women good, let’s secure advantages for women and make sure that men can’t harm us” ways that actually have second-order effects of making women less safe. But again, women’s emotions often don’t consider second-order effects.
Whereas men’s current problem is that they lack love, so they too are often okay with saying that men are bad and that we should discriminate in favor of women. Men hope to get love from women by acting that way. Note that most politicians are male and yet your society blatantly discriminates against men.
The result of all this is female supremacism.
Many women won’t agree that there’s female supremacism, even though it very clearly is there. Why? Because women tend to pursue emotional goals more than they pursue logic. It doesn’t fit women’s emotional goals to admit that there’s female supremacism, so many women don’t admit it (and possibly don’t even see it).
To be clear though, it’s not the case that women are unable to skillfully use logic. If a woman has logic on her side, she can use logic perfectly well to win an argument.
It’s more that for men, being logical (at least in their own minds) is an inherent need for them to have any peace of mind at all. You might disagree with men’s logic, but men at least care about having a set of beliefs that in their mind is logical. Whereas women don’t primarily care about being logical.
For women, logic is more a tool that they use to achieve emotional goals.
If you tell a woman “you’re not being logical and here’s an argument why” then some women will call you a jerk, or call you a bigot, or say that that’s offensive, or launch a personal attack, or try to get you censored, or ask if you realize how bad you’re making her feel, or just ignore your argument — without ever actually giving a reason for why she in fact is being logical.
Whereas if you tell a man “you’re not being logical and here’s an argument why” then he’ll almost certainly respond with a reason why he is being logical (at least in his own head).
If he can’t give a logical reason, he’ll probably tell you that you may be right, or that he’ll have to think about it, or have to do more research.
Most likely he won’t just say “you’re a jerk” or “you’re a bigot” or “that’s offensive” and treat that as an adequate rebuttal and fail to actually give a logical reason.
That’s because men tend to care more about being logical for its own sake. Logic isn’t just a tool to them, to use when it’s convenient and to ignore otherwise.
Now sure, as women go about achieving their emotional goals, they would prefer to have logic on their side as well.
But if a woman pursues an emotional goal and she doesn’t have logic on her side… Well, logic is just a tool, right? So in that case, women may just throw out any anecdote or argument that she can think of, regardless of whether it’s logical, regardless of whether those arguments are mutually contradictory. Just use all of the tools and see if one happens to work.
Women may just outright redefine words to make themselves right. For example, discrimination against men and female supremacism has been rebranded as equality. Remember the old joke: “if an organization is 50% women then it’s 50% diverse, and if an organization is 100% women then it’s 100% diverse.”
Women don’t say that a university’s psychology department isn’t diverse because it has too many women.
Women don’t tend to agree that in order to promote diversity and equality, there need to be more female garbage collectors.
Women may switch definitions as it benefits them. For example, if you define patriarchy as “most leaders are male” then yes the 2025 West is a patriarchy, but that’s not automatically a bad thing. If anything, male politicians tend to be too biased in favor of women.
Whereas if you define patriarchy as “most leaders are male and they conspire to oppress women” then yes patriarchy is really bad, but then the 2025 West isn’t a patriarchy. Observe how breast cancer research has much more funding than prostate cancer research. Observe how there are female-only scholarships while already more women attend university.
Logically, women would pick one of those definitions, and then either patriarchy isn’t automatically a bad thing, or the 2025 West isn’t a patriarchy.
But in practice, women use the first definition to argue that the 2025 West is a patriarchy, and then use the second contradictory definition to prove that patriarchy means oppression of women.
If women have an emotional goal but don’t have logic on their side, then women may just invent claims that suit their narrative. For example, if negative behavior of women is discussed, women often just invent the claim that only a tiny group of women does that. Whereas if negative behavior of men is discussed, women just invent the claim that a huge group of men do that (or women excessively rely on one old and highly flawed study).
This invention of claims might look like women saying they know one person who is a certain way, or women saying that their personal experience is that men tend to be a certain way, or women saying “well men do this”, and women then acting as if that’s proof that a large amount of men are bad or that nearly all women are good. Whereas if men used that style of argument, women would never accept that (and fair enough because statistically this is a worthless argument).
Or women may just invent the claim that the vast majority of feminists are after true gender equality for everyone, and there are only a small handful of feminists who want unfair advantages for women.
However, the claim of “most feminists are after true gender equality” is contradicted by many examples of feminists pushing for blatantly anti-male changes that benefit women. Often successfully so.
Here are some examples:
https://www.jpost.com/israel/womens-groups-cancel-law-charging-women-with-rape
Now, women don’t consciously think “muwahaha, I will now use an illogical argument to achieve my emotional goal.” However people’s rational minds are just rationalization machines that tie a pretty bow on whatever it is that person already wants to do.
Note that a rallying cry of some men is “facts don’t care about your feelings”, i.e. you women have your emotional goals, but us men have logic on our side. And yes, this is traditionally presented as right vs left rather than men vs women, but of course most right-wingers are men and most left-wingers are women.
Also, if there’s a double standard that benefits men, then typically it’s pointed out and then dismantled on the societal level (although individuals may still have them). This is because it makes men highly uncomfortable if someone plausibly points out that men are being illogical.
The few remaining “pro-male double standards” that remain aren’t really illogical and are rather the results of men and women being different. For example, yes, women who sleep around a lot aren’t respected while men who sleep around a lot do get some measure of respect. But that’s because it’s very easy for women to have a bunch of sex, while that’s hard for men to do. Furthermore, men who sleep around are succeeding at their biological agenda, while women who sleep around don’t.
Conversely, women typically don’t feel any need to dismantle illogical double standards that benefit them. Why? Because they fit women’s emotional goals, and women aren’t primarily driven by logic.
I mentioned some illogical pro-female double standards in part one, and here are some more ones:
Husband unhappy? Husband needs to change things. Wife unhappy? Husband needs to change things.
Man cheats on wife? Completely unacceptable, full stop, end of discussion. Wife cheats on husband? Well yes that was bad, we’re not condoning it, buuuuut was he meeting her needs? Was he being a good husband? How was she feeling about the relationship before she cheated?
Man says “my wife left me”? Well, in which ways was he being a bad husband? Woman says “my husband left me”? That husband must be an idiot or a jerk. Certainly let’s not ask the woman in which ways she was being a bad wife.
A man tries to find a long-term partner but keeps getting rejected? Clearly this proves that the man needs to self-improve or lower his standards. A woman tries to find a long-term partner but keeps getting rejected? Clearly this proves that men suck and that she shouldn’t settle. Let’s not tell the woman to self-improve, she’s already amazing as she is.
Men do well economically? This proves that men are horrible, namely they’re oppressing women. Women do well economically? This proves that men are horrible, namely they’re lazy losers who just sit in their parent’s basement playing video games and watching porn. It’s like how in modern movies, men are either losers or evil.
Saying “I don’t automatically respect women, they need to earn my respect” is a bit of a shocking statement. Saying “I don’t automatically respect men, they need to earn my respect” is a completely fine and normal statement.
Women may insist that men have no right or credible ability to speak on certain topics, while of course women never say that women have no right or credible ability to speak on certain topics.
If you say “women are the problem in society” then people will look at you like you’re a psychopath or dangerous lunatic who should probably be locked up. Meanwhile “men are the problem in society” is a pretty normal statement. And if someone wants to argue “but it’s TRUE that men are the problem in society”, well yes that’s indeed what your female supremacist society says.
If any group except men do bad things or perform poorly in some way, that automatically proves that this group is getting discriminated against, and we need to systemically help that group. Meanwhile, men do bad things or perform poorly? This either proves that men are thrash or that men need to put in more effort — certainly there’s no need to systemically help men.
Here’s yet another double standard: women’s feelings and lived experiences are proof that women are oppressed and that we must structurally help women. Meanwhile 4 out of 5 people who kill themselves are men, so presumably men have painful emotions and painful lived experiences too… but those aren’t evidence that we must structurally help men.
Some women endlessly point to most CEOs being male, while one ignoring that few women choose to work 70 hours per week so of course fewer women are CEOs, and two ignoring that most garbage collectors and homeless people are also male.
Suppose you lived in a world where 80% of CEOs were women. Would women then say that proves men are oppressed, and would women start implementing male quotas? Of course not. (Are women implementing male quotas for university’s psychology departments?)
Women think it’s unfair if men argue that women’s menstruation proves that women are on average less rational and less emotionally stable. But if tomorrow women stopped menstruating and men started menstruating, then some women would definitely use that to argue that men are on average less rational and less emotionally stable.
Also, a woman wants a tall partner? Completely fine. A man wants a partner who is not overweight or who has large breasts? Completely unacceptable. (Tinder just added a height filter. Now imagine the reaction if Tinder added a weight filter or breast size filter.)
You get the point. There are a large number of blatantly illogical pro-female double standards that just won’t die. Why? Because they serve women’s emotional goals, and that matters more to women than logic.
Let’s look at a more in-depth example, namely the trans debate.
First we’ll define some terms. A person who was born as a man (i.e. is a biological male), yet who now identifies as a woman, is called a trans woman. Trans women often use the pronouns “she” and “her.” Some trans women have penises, while some trans women have surgically created vaginas.
The pro-trans position is “trans women are women.” This means that biological men should be allowed to compete in women’s sports (even though they have a massive advantage in lots of sports). Biological men should be put in women’s prison (even if the trans woman is a rapist and has a penis). And biological men should be allowed to use the women’s bathroom.
Conversely, the gender critical position is that adults have the right to transition to the opposite gender and that trans people don’t deserve to be harassed. However, biological men shouldn’t be allowed to compete in women’s sports, be put in women’s prisons and probably shouldn’t be allowed to use the women’s bathroom. The gender critical position is also frequently opposed to having minors take hormones or undergo sex-change surgery.
In academia a trans woman (i.e. a person born as a male who now identifies as a woman) is considered to have the female gender and the male sex. Though I think that’s a bit confusing because it arguably redefines words in a specific way, and normal people don’t necessarily use those definitions.
Equivalent definitions apply to trans men (who are biological women who identify as men).
A lot of women hold the gender-critical position, and a lot of women hold the pro-trans position. However, of the people who hold the pro-trans position, most are women.
And of the male pro-trans people, some of them only hold that position because men want to receive more love.
If tomorrow women said that the sky is purple, something like 20% of all men would agree with them in order to receive more love. Whereas if men said that the sky is purple, women would just say “that’s stupid” and not believe that the sky is purple. (And kudos to women on that point.)
So the pro-trans position is mostly driven by women. And as we’ll see, the pro-trans position ultimately boils down to “I don’t care if it’s logical, I’m pro-trans because that fulfills my emotional goal of preventing harm from befalling trans people.” Which isn’t automatically a bad position, but it does show women prioritizing emotional goals over logic. Which is the point I’m making.
Let me make the argument:
Picture a man who hasn’t undergone surgery and hasn’t taken hormones to transition. This person is by all appearances a man. This person claims to be a woman and a “she”. Then a lot of women will say that this is valid and should be honored, and that society must treat this trans woman as a woman.
Now picture a white person who sincerely identifies as black and who claims to be a black person. Then a lot of women will say that this is invalid and is in fact highly offensive.
This isn’t logical. To be logical, either trans women are women and trans blacks are blacks, or neither is true.
A lot of women will say that trans women are women, but trans blacks aren’t blacks. Why? Because their emotional goal is preventing harm and they think those are the positions that will prevent the most harm.
Now women will try to contest the logical high ground, because why not, so they might want to say: “there don’t actually exist white people who claim to be black.” Well, that’s incorrect. Google Rachel Dolezal.
And if women want to argue that Rachel is not actually sincere: oh, we’re allowed to state that trans people aren’t sincere? But a lot of women would say: no, you can’t question the sincerity of transgender people, but we can question the sincerity of trans black people. But obviously, that’s not logical.
Maybe women want to argue: “well trans blacks are a tiny minority. We must prioritize the well-being of the majority.” Well, if we accept that logic, then similarly the well-being of the majority of non-transgender people should be prioritized over the well-being of the tiny group of transgender people. So then biological women don’t get to compete in women’s sports, which goes against the female pro-trans position.
Arguments that claim to debunk transracialism also debunk transgenderism.
Now women can always say “well transracialism and transgenderism are different.” And yes it is, but you can’t just say “it’s different” as if that’s a magic wand that excuses any logical inconsistency.
Just because groups are different, doesn’t automatically mean that the group you like gets to have rights, and the group you don’t like doesn’t.
Now sure, pro-trans women usually dress up that argument by saying: “these kinds of groups are valid, and look transgenderism is among them. While these kinds of groups are invalid, and look transracialism is among them.”
But who gave pro-trans people the right to determine which groups are and aren’t valid? A trans black person wouldn’t agree that the group he falls into is invalid. A gender critical person also may not agree with a pro-trans person’s categorization of what is valid and what isn’t.
People can always feel what they emotionally would like to be true, and then reason backward, and then make a word salad to argue why they’re right. But that’s not actually logical.
If you strip away the fluff and the nonsense, most pro-transgender and anti-trans black arguments really boil down to “transgenderism is true, and transracialism is false, because those are the positions that prevent the most harm.”
But first of all, trans black people won’t agree that those are the positions that prevent the most harm. And again, if pro-transgender people want to say that they simply outvote the trans black people, then by that logic non-trans people will just outvote trans people, right?
Even if we agree that believing transgender people but not believing trans black are the positions that prevent the most harm: well that still doesn’t prove that those positions are true.
Suppose an important bank is insolvent, and it falsifies its book and presents false data that shows that it is solvent. Then arguably that lie prevents a bank run and thereby an economic crisis. But just because that “we’re solvent” lie prevents harm, doesn’t make it true.
Other than the trans black argument, another problem is that it’s a circular definition to say that a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman.
If a woman is just anyone who identifies as a woman, then can someone just identify as a woman to get a female-only benefit? No, that’s not legitimate. Okay, so people are allowed to say that certain trans people aren’t legitimate? No, that’s not allowed. Pro-trans people illogically say that only they can judge who is legitimate.
Now a trans woman may claim to be a woman because she feels like a woman. But how does a person who is born as a man know what it feels like to be a woman?
Maybe the trans woman can point to stereotypes about women and say “I conform to those stereotypes therefore I’m a woman.” But then, is a woman who doesn’t conform to those stereotypes not a woman?
Furthermore, pro-trans people are usually against female stereotypes. But then female stereotypes are okay to prove that trans women really are women?
So if we really boil it down, women’s pro-trans position isn’t logical.
If we’re going to be intellectually honest, a lot of women’s actual position is: “I don’t care whether it’s logical or not. Trans women are women, but trans blacks aren’t blacks, because those are the positions that prevent the most harm.”
Namely, pro-trans women believe that the pro-trans position literally stops trans people from ending their own lives. So those pro-trans women are pursuing the emotional goal of preventing harm to trans people.
And then logical-sounding arguments are built on top of that because why not contest the logical high ground.
And yes, a lot of women are gender-critical and will argue that trans women aren’t women. But note that their primary argument typically isn’t that it’s illogical. They’re typically not leading with the trans black argument, for example.
Instead their primary argument is typically that it hurts women if biological men can just say that they’re women, and then enter female spaces. And that’s a fair argument — but again it’s foremost an emotional goal based that’s being pursued (protecting women).
To be clear: yes a debate can be had about women’s sports and women’s bathrooms and pronouns and other things. However if you value universal or unconditional love, if you value giving adults the freedom to make their own decisions, then that applies to trans people as well. So I don’t support harassing trans people for example (although not giving trans people everything they want isn’t harassment).
I just find it pretty striking that a lot of men very strongly hold the gender-critical position because they think that’s the more logical position. While a lot of women very strongly hold the pro-trans position because they think that’s the position that prevents the most harm and therefore fits women’s emotional goals.
What this means
Ideally men share their logical perspective, and women share their emotional goals-based perspective, and together the best decision is made.
Both perspectives have their place. We already discussed how logic is sometimes better. But then again, sometimes men reason that cutting down this forest or poisoning this river increases profits, and women are right to have the emotional goal of protecting nature.
This channeler previously channeled Tourmalayne, who was a female decision-maker in our society before she retired. We find it best to have both male and female decision-makers, so that when a discussion is held on what to do, you get both perspectives.
However, right now this is breaking down and running into problems on Earth, for a few reasons.
One problem is that women in a lot of cases use censorship or reputation-destroying insults like “racist” or “transphobe” or “grandma killer” to prevent right-wingers (who are mostly men) from being able to speak.
This attitude of “us women get to speak, you men don’t because you’re bigots” means that men and women can no longer mutually come to the best policy. Which ultimately hurts both men and women.
Another problem is that a lot of women have gotten it into their head that the way to be safe and to have a decent life is to keep men down and secure structural unfairness in favor of women.
Or at the very least, women let other women do that and they don’t lift a finger themselves to end female supremacism. Few women call out other women for being too anti-male.
This might help women in the very short term, but it has disastrous and counterproductive second-order effects, which women’s emotions typically don’t take into account.
Namely, female supremacism crushes average well-meaning men who would otherwise contribute and provide and protect. Meanwhile the awful men are still going to be awful.
Foreign men, and men born into elite families aren’t going to be kept down by a female supremacist system. While good normal men are.
So basically, women are metaphorically shooting the good men and are then vulnerable to awful men. Yes, I get that this is a huge simplification and reality is messier, but still.
This is made worse by the fact that men are underloved (often from childhood onwards) and therefore are unwilling to stand up to women in cases where that’s appropriate.
Too many men are willing to throw other men under the bus for a fleeting scrap of female approval.
In your society, if men have a stupid idea, then women and other men will use logical arguments to debunk those ideas, and that will mostly work. And if men try to make illogical emotional appeals, then people simply don’t listen to them. So certainly men have stupid ideas sometimes, but those often don’t get very far.
But if women have a destructive, emotion-driven idea… oooh boy.
If women have an emotional goal that they want to pursue, then they often don’t consider second-order effects. And they don’t let themselves be stopped by logical arguments.
And men, being underloved, are often unwilling to stand up to women even if women are clearly wrong.
So in your current society, there aren’t good mechanisms that stop women from pursuing an emotional goal that’s actually destructive.
And frankly, if you look at your society, a whole lot of damage has been done by women pursuing emotional goals that turned out to be destructive, and men not being willing to sufficiently stand up to them.
See illegal immigration, covid lockdowns, covid jabs being mandatory, anti-male discrimination, the tearing apart of the nuclear family, anti-fossil fuel and anti-nuclear energy policies without having a sufficient alternative, censorship, etc.
Now yes some of those things were also pushed by the dark controllers, however the dark controllers can only accomplish things if a sizable chunk of the population agrees with them. That’s why they haven’t been able to start WW3 or enact a new lockdown. Whereas they were able to for example implement covid lockdowns in 2020 because a sizeable group of especially women supported that.
What are the solutions?
One obvious solution is: directly work to dismantle female supremacism.
Alternatively: work to fix the underlying root problems. So women should give more love to men, and / or men should do more to protect and provide for women. Ideally women (and men) shouldn’t need to worry about being raped or about their ability to just have a decent life.
That said, it’s not productive if both genders point to the other and say they need to be better first.
What would also help is men giving more love to men, and I do support that, however that alone won’t fully nourish men. Plus, even if men do that, they’re still facing a whole lot of systemic discrimination.
Obviously it’s not the exact same thing, but imagine a white supremacist society that told black people: “we’re going to continue systemically discriminating against you until you behave better. Yes, innocent black people are going to get systemically discriminated against too, until black people as a whole behave better.” Obviously in that situation no one would be saying that it’s up to black people to help themselves. Instead then the obvious solution is to end systemic anti-black discrimination first.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t help much for men to demonstrate for men’s rights, because people don’t listen to male men’s rights activists. Plus male men’s rights activists may get fired at work, may run into serious social problems, et cetera.
Something else that doesn’t work as well as you might hope is just to point out how unfair men are being treated and to appeal to women to demonstrate for men’s rights. Certainly this will move some women, however people (whether men or women) who feel very unsafe typically are unwilling to make sacrifices just to be fair to others. We also see this, for example, when one country mistreats another country to secure its own safety.
However the core misconception here is that systemic mistreatment of men actually makes women safer. It doesn’t.
So another possible solution is for women to realize that yes their desire to have better and safer lives is reasonable. However, structural unfairness towards men and silencing of men won’t stop awful from being awful, but it will crush good normal men. Who then stop providing and protecting and contributing, which leads to everyone being far worse off.
Some women might try to solve this by effectively saying: “men, please come back to the farm so that we can continue to milk you for productivity and protection. What’s that? Reform divorce court? Of course we’re not going to do that, silly. Now please come back to the farm.” But that doesn’t work anymore. Men are talking to each other on the internet and social media, and men have wised up.
If women want average men to work hard all their lives for the benefit of society, and indeed that’s the only way in which society will thrive… then the systemic mistreatment of men has to stop.
There has to be an actual reward for average men to work hard.
Note that if men don’t work hard, then fewer goods are produced, and then prices rise, and that’s inflation. So even women who are fine with being single, or who already have a husband, will still benefit from men working hard. Not to mention men’s role in keeping women safe.
Hence divorce court can’t just keep giving women her ex-husband’s house and the kids, even if she initiated the divorce and he didn’t cheat or abuse her.
That, and similar things, have to end. Because why on Earth would men work hard and marry if they’re perfectly well aware that that is an entirely possible outcome?
From the man’s perspective, why not just play video games, or have a bunch of casual sex, if working hard and marriage may very well lead to being destroyed in divorce court?
And even if men don’t get destroyed in divorce court — okay, then they’re seen as Homer Simpson.
Who wants to be Homer Simpson?
Some women might think “men should treat women better if they don’t want their wives to leave them.” Well that statement isn’t going to convince any marriage-sceptic man to sign up for marriage. You can’t shame men back to the farm anymore.
Besides, that’s the kind of one-sided man-blaming that leads men to not want to marry women in the first place. Because sure, some men should treat their wives better, but why do you never hear about wives who should treat their husband better? And besides, why is the man responsible for his wife’s happiness, but not the other way around?
This is the thing of “women fabricating out of thin air that it’s a substantial group of men that do bad things” (in this case being a terrible husband) that I was talking about earlier.
At this point, women might feel that talking about this topic does more harm than good, or that it’s more important to focus societal efforts elsewhere.
Well, it’s very convenient for a woman to say that we shouldn’t focus on female supremacism.
Also, women are sort of assuming that if the gender situation is ignored, then things will roughly continue as they are. But that’s wrong. The current situation is unstable and actually deteriorating.
Now yes you might get bailed out soon by a cosmic event or a galactic or gray hat intervention. But then again, normal people are still going to have to contribute to building New Earth. Plus it’s possible that those things are still some ways away. And besides, the more you ignore problems and hope to get bailed out, the more that a big intervention will be delayed.
In the absence of a big intervention, the gender situation will get worse over time, including for women, which means that it’s best to end female supremacism now.
Why? Well, remember the prisoner’s dilemma. In this dilemma, if both prisoners rat out the other, then both serve 2 years in prison. If only one person rats on the other, then that person goes free while the person being ratted out serves 3 years. And if both people remain silent, then both serve 1 year.
So both people remaining quiet is the optimal overall outcome, with the total prison time served just being two years in total (one for each person). And the overall worst outcome is both people ratting out each other, with the total prison time served being four years (two for each person).
If you play this game with someone once, then it’s in your best interest to rat out the other. Whatever the other person does, it’s in your best interest to rat them out. Even though the overall best outcome is created by both players staying silent.
But if you play this game repeatedly with someone, it’s best to both remain silent. Because otherwise you end up in a situation where you both constantly rat out the other, and you constantly get the overall worst outcome. So while in the short term it’s best to rat the other out, in the long term it’s best to remain silent.
In the West in 2025, on the whole, women are choosing to rat out men, while men are choosing to stay silent.
By this, I mean that there’s female supremacism that has been in large part implemented by women, and women aren’t lifting a finger to change that. So women are choosing the “rat out” option. See all the examples of anti-male discrimination from this and previous channelings.
Meanwhile men aren’t even fighting or speaking out against blatant anti-male discrimination, and are choosing the “remain silent” option.
Yes I know, some men are monsters, but that doesn’t disprove that most men are staying silent. And yes, some women are active men’s rights activists. But on the whole, women are choosing the rat out option, and men are choosing the “remain silent” option.
So if we look at it through this lens, then it’s a bit silly for some women to say “let’s not talk about gender, let’s focus on other topics.” Because the current situation is that women are ratting out men, while men are staying silent.
And sure, that way women get zero years and the man gets three years. This is women’s best outcome and men’s worst outcome (as illustrated by the fact that 80% of people killing themselves are men).
But of course if this keeps happening, eventually men are going to switch their strategy to “rat out women” too. And then everyone loses, horrifically.
What would that look like? Well for example it could look like men taking away women’s right to vote, and then just implementing whatever policies they want with women no longer having a vote to oppose that.
Obviously I don’t support taking away women’s vote. And I’m not saying that will happen in the near future. It may not even happen at all. But it could happen at some point.
Listen to disaffected young men talk among themselves when they think no one is listening, and you might be shocked at what they say. Just because they’re not saying “repeal the 19th” in public, doesn’t mean they’re not quietly saying such things among themselves.
Let’s be clear. If men decide to actually start oppressing women, women are screwed.
What are women going to do then — complain? Shame men? That only works if men listen to women. Besides, women already complain and shame men and cry “oppression” and call men nazis today, so what would be the difference?
Will women ask men to stop men from taking away their vote? That only works if men listen to women. You might very well have most men just not lifting a finger to stop some men from oppressing women — you know, like how today most women aren’t lifting a finger to stop some women from oppressing men.
Will women threaten a sex strike? Well more than 60% of young men are single, see https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/3868557-most-young-men-are-single-most-young-women-are-not/. And there are a lot of bitter post-divorce men too who aren’t getting sex and who have no stake in the current system. And there are married men who nonetheless aren’t getting sex. You can’t use a sex strike to sway a man who isn’t getting sex anyway.
Will women just try to vote anyway despite not being allowed? Men will just arrest those women. After a few of those women are thrown in prison, women will stop doing that.
Will women pick up guns and literally fight men? Then sure, some men will die, but obviously men are better at fighting than women. Not to mention that only very few women would be willing to go fight men if men actually shoot back. Realistically speaking, a few men and a few women will get shot, and then women will just accept that they no longer have the vote. They will complain, men will no longer listen, and that will be that.
If society already tells men who have done nothing wrong that they are the problem, then why wouldn’t men choose to become the monsters that society tells them they are?
If men actually wanted to oppress women, they could do so, and women would have no defense against it. So, it’s not in women’s interest for your society to remain female supremacist.
The situation has gotten so completely absurd that it would be naive to think that there isn’t going to come some point in the future when the gender pendulum swings the other way.
Let’s illustrate just how insanely anti-male the situation has gotten.
In the UK and in the US, if a woman rapes a man and gets pregnant, courts will force the male rape victim to pay child support to his rapist.
Horrifying, right?
Well here’s something even worse:
The same is true if the rape victim is instead a teenage boy.
So in the UK and in the US, if an adult woman rapes a teenage boy and gets pregnant, courts will force the teenage male rape victim to pay child support to his adult rapist.
This really happens. For example, see the court case County of San Luis Obispo v. Nathaniel J. (1996). In that case, a 34 year old woman raped a 15 year old boy. Then the courts forced that teenage boy to pay child support to his pedophilic rapist.
See https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/4th/50/842.html
This illustrates the complete insanity and inhumanity with which courts abuse men.
Now sure, most days you don’t see courts forcing teenage boys to pay child support to their pedophilic rapist. However, more typical cases, where men still get unfairly destroyed in court, do happen every single day.
Do you really think that courts willing to order teenage boys to pay their pedophilic rapist, won’t rule against men in other unfair ways too?
So, no wonder that men don’t want to work hard and marry anymore.
And also, in this context, do you really think that there can’t possibly be a severe male pushback against the current situation at some point? You know, men switching their prisoner’s dilemma strategy from remaining silent to “rat out women”?
From the male perspective it might actually seem preferable to take away women’s vote, so that women stop implementing anti-male discrimination and stop pushing destructive policies for emotional-goal reasons.
Or in prisoner’s dilemma terms: currently women get 0 years and men get 3 years. If men swap to ratting out women too, then both men and women get 2 years. Which is worse on the whole and far worse for women, but better for men.
So, it would be best to end female supremacism now.
The good news is that if women switch to the cooperative “remain silent” option too, then both men and women are in that mode, and that’s the overall optimal solution.
Women might argue “this current situation doesn’t feel like the zero years in prison for us women.” Now sure, the prisoner’s dilemma is not a perfect metaphor.
Still, women are currently benefiting from a bunch of pro-female discrimination and from a bunch of silent “women are wonderful, men are thrash” bias. And it’s easy not to notice the privilege you have.
Women aren’t suffering from systemic discrimination against them, but rather from the actions of evil individuals — whether that’s individual evil men or the relative handful of dark controllers on your world.
And that is mitigated if society no longer discriminates against men, because then average men will more productively provide and protect and deal with bad men.
The solution is to not keep men down, so that men deal with bad men.
You know what also helps dark controllers? That people can’t freely talk online. And censorship is a very female thing to do. Men mostly force themselves to have logically-defensible positions, so then men are fine to let the other side speak, they’ll just present logical counterarguments. Whereas women may have illogical positions fueled by emotional goals, and so women have to censor men in order to stop men from just logically tearing their arguments apart.
And obviously, a side effect of women wanting men censored to protect their emotional goal, is that dark controllers are also protected by censorship.
The dark controllers couldn’t do as much damage if women would just let men be men.
As for women suffering from the actions of individual men: yes that’s horrible. However, you know what female supremacism doesn’t prevent? It doesn’t prevent a percentage of illegal immigrants from raping women. You know what female supremacism does prevent? It does prevent a lot of good, normal men from speaking out against illegal immigration.
Female supremacism doesn’t stop bad men. But it does prevent good men from stopping bad men.
Female supremacism hurts women too.
So, that was today’s message.
I am curious to read your thoughts in the comment section, if you’re willing to share what you’re thinking.
With that, and with all my love, I will leave you for today.
Your star sister,
On the Blogs:- https://purple-rays.blogspot.com/search?q=Tunia
- https://purpelligh.blogspot.com/ ~ Inspiration; Insights & Spirituality
- https://violet-rays.blogspot.com/ ~ Natural Health; Healing
- https://violet--flame.blogspot.com/ ~ Geopolitics; Leaks & Whistleblowers*
- https://purple-rays.blogspot.com/ ~ Channeled Messages
* replacing rayviolet11.blogspot.com/ blocked
- https://purple-rays.blogspot.com/search?q=Tunia
- https://purpelligh.blogspot.com/ ~ Inspiration; Insights & Spirituality
- https://violet-rays.blogspot.com/ ~ Natural Health; Healing
- https://violet--flame.blogspot.com/ ~ Geopolitics; Leaks & Whistleblowers*
- https://purple-rays.blogspot.com/ ~ Channeled Messages
My notes: - God the Source is unconditional love, not a zealous god of [some] dogmatic religions.
- All articles are the responsibility of the respective authors.
- My personal opinion: Nobody is more Anti-Semite then the Zionists.
Reminder discernment is recommendedfrom the heart, not from the mind The Truth Within Us, Will Set Us Free. We Are ONE.No Need of Dogmatic Religions, Political Parties, and Dogmatic Science, linked to a Dark Cabal that Divides to Reign.Any investigation of a Genuine TRUTH will confirm IT. TRUTH need no protection. Question: Why the (fanatics) Zionists are so afraid of any Holocaust investigations?
- God the Source is unconditional love, not a zealous god of [some] dogmatic religions.
- All articles are the responsibility of the respective authors.
- My personal opinion: Nobody is more Anti-Semite then the Zionists.
Main Sites:
EN/PT http://violetflame.biz.ly
PT/EN chamavioleta.blogs.sapo.pt/
Blogs:
EN/PT http://violetflame.biz.ly
PT/EN chamavioleta.blogs.sapo.pt/
Blogs:
EN https://purpelligh.blogspot.com/
https://violet-rays.blogspot.com/
https://purple-rays.blogspot.com/https://violet--flame.blogspot.com/
https://violet-rays.blogspot.com/
https://purple-rays.blogspot.com/
Social Media:
(email:nai@violetflame.biz.ly) Google deleted my former blogs rayviolet.blogspot.com & rayviolet2.blogspot.com just 10 hrs after I post Benjamin Fulford's
February 6, 2023 report, accusing me of posting child pornography.(A Big Fat Lie) Also rayviolet11.blogspot.com on Sep/13, 2024, and again on July 23, 2025.
February 6, 2023 report, accusing me of posting child pornography.
No comments:
Post a Comment