Purpose #1) To compensate
for their submissive
personality
Men evolved a personality
that causes us to compete for
leadership, and women evolved to be followers who are taken care of, so
men will always dominate a
society. The Women's Division
is intended to compensate for that by providing the women with some
additional influence.
The Women's Division makes it easy for the women to get together to
analyze and discuss issues, and develop suggestions for improving the
city's culture. Men are prohibited from being members of the Women's
Division in order to prevent the women from becoming uncomfortable,
dominated, or intimidated by men. The women will have their own
facilities to do research, write documents, and get together for
discussions, without men.
By providing the women with
a government agency of their own, they will
be able to work together as a team, and that will allow them to develop
more intelligent analyses and suggestions compared to when they are
individuals. They will be able to learn from one another,
inspire
one another, and help one another develop their ideas.
This
concept can be seen all throughout history. Specifically, when people
form a team,
they are always more
productive than when they are individuals. Even a team of idiots or animals is more productive than a
group of independent idiots
and animals.
Allowing men to join the women would undoubtedly help the women to
improve their ideas, but the Women's Division is restricted to women so
that they don't have to
suffer from any awkwardness, pandering, flirting, or intimidation from
men. If
the women want a man's opinion about something, they can decide which
man
to invite to a discussion, and they will be in control of the
discussion, and the man will be in a submissive position.
Purpose # 2) To provide
leadership
for the women
An unfortunate aspect of
democracies, anarchies, free enterprise
systems, and other leaderless
systems is that they eventually become dominated by the people who are
abnormally selfish, violent, neurotic, and dishonest.
No nation is providing leadership to the women, and the result is that
millions of
women are whining about their problems to their friends
and neighbors; posting angry documents or videos on the Internet;
writing angry documents for magazines and newspapers; and making angry
remarks on television talk shows.
The women who become the most influential are those who are members of
organizations. There are thousands of organizations of women around the
world, some of which are listed in Wikipedia here,
but the women involved with crime
networks have the most influence.
None of the women's organizations have provided us with useful analyses
of men or women, culture, or our relationships. There is no evidence
that any of them have improved life for men or women. There are more
single, divorced, lonely, angry, and miserable women today than there
were before these organizations existed.
Some of the accomplishments that they boast about should be condemned
as destructive, such as making it acceptable for women to drink
alcohol among intoxicated men, and to smoke cigarettes. They also boast
about giving women the right to vote, but that hasn't done anything to
improve life for anybody, or improve our governments.
Rather than be beneficial, most of the women's organizations are
encouraging accusations of sexism and toxic masculinity, and they
promote anti-genetic propaganda, support of Israel, and Jewish
propaganda about Nazis, Muslims, white privilege, the 9/11 attack, the
Holocaust, and hundreds of other issues.
In order to provide the women with better leadership, citizens do not
have the right to create their own organizations. The government
determines which organizations exist, and the government officials are
required to occasionally give a "job performance review" to each
organization to ensure that they are beneficial to society.
The Women's Division makes it easier for both men and women to deal
with the
complaints and suggestions of women because it provides women with a
government organization to
investigate and develop their ideas. The men will be able to
deal with a small number of officials in the Women's Division who put
time and effort into developing intelligent documents,
rather than thousands of independent women who have a variety of vague
and undeveloped complaints.
Although the women choose the leaders of the Women's Division, they
must pick women who have been selected as City
Elders. That requirement will increase the chances that the women have
leaders
with desirable minds and attitudes.
Example #1: “Honey Do” lists are not sexist
An example of what the
Women's Division can do, and how the men can
respond, is the issue of "honey do" lists.
Some married men occasionally tell their friends that they can't join
them in some leisure activity because they are busy that day with " honey do's".
Although most definitions of that expression imply that both women and
men have honey-do
lists, I've never heard a woman use that expression.
The expression has spread to the UK, and a British woman, Rebecca Reid,
has responded with a document that has the title
" Honey do lists are sexist as
all hell".
She claims that a honey-do list is the sensible requests from a wife
for her husband
to contribute equally to the household chores. She
essentially accuses men of being parasitic, sexist, and lazy, and that
they do the chores in the honey-do list simply to get sex. She
complains that men "s eem
surprisingly comfortable with the idea that sex is a vending machine,
where you put chores in and get orgasms out."
The Women's Division makes it easy for women to discuss and investigate
such issues, and develop suggestions on how to improve relationships
between men and women. They would post their document in the Requests
category. The men would then be able to pass judgment on their
document, and either approve of their suggestion, or give them
constructive criticism about it.
If the women posted a document similar to that written by Rebecca Reid,
then the men would be able to respond that it is absurd to accuse men
of creating the "honey-do" expression because we are sexist or abusive.
That expression was created because men have a strong desire to pamper women. It is an expression
that a man uses to let his friends that he is busy doing something that
his wife has requested him to do, and that he is doing it for her, not
himself, so he cannot delay it for some other day.
The husbands who are truly abusive and selfish do not do "honey
do's". Instead, they ignore their wife's requests, or tell her to shut
up, or tell her to do the work herself. The women who have a husband
that does honey-do lists have a husband who is her servant, and is
treating her like a queen.
The men could also verify that the husbands that the women are using as
examples of sexism are truly "typical" men. They would undoubtedly
discover that the women are picking out the men who are unusually
selfish or mentally ill, in which case the men could point out that
their complaint is invalid because it is based on misfits.
If details of Rebecca Reid's life were in the People
database, the men could also analyze her life, and they might be able
to offer some suggestions on why she is so angry at men. For example,
in this
document, she says that " Since
I was 12 years old I've been in pain for at least two days of every
month." She has had two miscarriages, and says
that she " loved drinking and
was a regular smoker".
The people who drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes claim that they
"enjoy" it, as if those activities are optional forms of entertainment,
but those activities should be regarded as evidence that those people
are suffering from something. We should investigate them to determine
what is
different about those people, and try to understand why they are
attracted to alcohol and cigarettes, rather than pretend that those
people are random samples of the human population who have simply
chosen different activities.
An analysis of Rebecca Reid's life would probably show that she is
suffering
from some mental and/or physical problems that is causing her to be
irritable, which in turn results in her developing a miserable attitude
towards men.
Rebecca Reid has written a lot of documents for women, but none of them
provide women with an intelligent analysis of marriage, honey-do lists,
men, household chores, or anything else. She is like most of the other
influential women in the world. Specifically, an angry, bitter,
unhappy woman who constantly whines
about men.
Example #2: Men are not
evil for having cravings for sex
There are frequently news
reports about women complaining about their husbands having sexual
affairs with other women, and the men are often described as cheaters,
philanderers, womanizers, evil, cruel, selfish, and abusive.
In September 2024, RFK Jr. once again became
the subject of these complaints. However, whining about these men
doesn't improve life for anybody, or help us understand human behavior,
or provide us with suggestions on how to improve our relationships.
The people who have risen to influential positions of our modern
societies are not providing us with any useful analyses or suggestions.
They are encouraging whining, accusations, temper tantrums, and
arrogance.
A more sensible analysis of adultery and promiscuity would show us that
this is "normal" animal behavior. Male animals have intense cravings
for sex, and they are not very finicky about which female they have sex
with. The females are finicky, which forces the males to put a
lot of time and effort into trying to titillate the females.
The sexual characteristics are not evil or abusive. It is simply the
method that evolved in animals to ensure that the males with the best
genetic characteristics were the most likely to reproduce.
With humans, the situation is more complex because humans are degrading
genetically. This has resulted in unknown but significant percentage of
the population that is suffering from some type of physical or mental
disorder, which is causing them to be somewhat unhappy. This in
turn results in them looking for some way to make themselves feel
better, such as getting drunk, having lots of sex, shopping for things
that they don't actually need, playing with pet animals, eating sweet
foods, and trying to become wealthy or famous.
Many of the things that people are doing are to relieve misery or
boredom, not because they truly enjoy those things.
As mentioned in many documents, our modern cultures have evolved
to appease our sexual inhibitions, and this has caused a lot of men to
develop obsessions for sex and female bodies, and caused women to
become angry or hysterical about sexual issues.
If we can figure out how to raise children so that they become as
accustomed to human bodies and sex as our prehistoric ancestors, they
would become adults who would have an easier time realizing that a man
who wants lots of sex is not necessarily any different from a woman who
spends an excessive amount of time shopping or eating, or spending
excessive amounts of time with cosmetics, jewelry, pet animals, dolls,
or babies.
Men and women have slightly different emotional characteristics, so
when we are unhappy, we tend to choose slightly different activities to
make ourselves feel better. The unhappy men are likely to try to pursue
wealth, status, and sex. Some men try to mask their misery with
alcohol, drugs, or risky sports. Unhappy men are also likely to become
angry and violent.
Although unhappy women are also attracted to wealth, status, alcohol,
and drugs, they are not as likely to be interested in sex, risky
sports, or violence. They are more likely to spend excessive amounts of
time eating, shopping, and playing with babies, cosmetics, and pet
animals.
Our culture considers a man to be badly behaved if he has sex with lots
of women. We have created words to describe that type of man, such as
philanderer and womanizer. However, he is not necessarily any different
from a woman who is spending a lot of time eating, shopping, or playing
with pet animals.
If a man is a "womanizer" for having lots of sex, then a woman who is
spending excessive amounts of time with pets could be described as a
"petizer", and an overweight woman could be described as a "foodizer".
If a man is evil for having lots of sex, then a woman should be
considered evil for shopping excessively, or spending excessive amounts
of time with cosmetics.
Rather than accuse men of being "womanizers", or accuse women of being
"petizers", a more sensible attitude is that men and women have subtle
differences in our mental characteristics. Neither one of us is better
or worse than the other.
We need leaders who will dampen the whining, hatred, and accusations,
and encourage research of human behavior. We need leaders who will
experiment with making our culture suppress our inappropriate
characteristics and encourage our desirable characteristics. We also
need to restrict reproduction so that each generation is more
emotionally suited to this modern era.
We also need both men and women to control their sexual inhibitions
enough to acknowledge the evidence that the primary purpose of an
animal's life is to reproduce,
and this results in sex being one of the major and most important
activities in an animal's life.
We must accept the evidence that men have strong cravings for sex, and
women have strong cravings for babies. We must experiment with our
culture to deal with these characteristics rather than whine about one
another. For example, the schools are required to give the boys and
girls practice
in dealing with man's sexual cravings.
None of the existing cultures are providing women with leadership.
Instead, there are thousands of individual women and organizations
whining about men. By providing the women with a government agency,
they will be able to work together to develop their complaints and
suggestions. The men will respond to that government division, rather
than thousands of individual women and organizations.
Example #3: Men are not
abusive to women or children
A more complex example is
that there are some women who complain that
their husbands are abusive to them and/or their children. It is true
that some men hit, slap, yell at, or insult their wives or children,
but none of the women who have gotten into influential positions in the
world today have any concern for why men lose
their temper with their wives or children.
By restricting the Women's Division to women who are in good mental
health and who have an excellent understanding of evolution and animal
behavior, the women will be taught that the issue of abusive men is
virtually the same as the issue of abusive mothers.
Mothers are not abusive to children
There are lots of children occasionally accusing their mothers of being
abusive, and it is true that there are some women with mental disorders
who are abusive to their children. However, it is absurd to accuse
mothers of being abusive to their children.
Mothers have such an intense craving to take care of children that they
will often sacrifice their lives for their children, but there are two
common reasons that children complain about abuse:
1) |
|
Mothers inadvertently abuse their
children
None of us knows the proper way to raise children. All of us are
guessing about how to raise children, and we base our guesses on
information that we picked up from other ignorant people. The end
result is that we often choose to do something that is annoying to the
children, or that hurts them.
This problem can also be seen in the way people treat pet animals and
animals in zoos. Not many people want to hurt animals, but many of the
things that people do are irritating or harmful to the animals, such as
when they feed them unhealthy foods. Those people are abusive to
animals because of ignorance, not because they enjoy torturing animals.
Our emotions cause us to assume that we are raising children properly
when the children are smiling and giggling, but that was true only
during prehistoric times. Our modern technology allows parents to
inadvertently hurt their children. For example, parents today can
easily provide their children with excessive quantities of food and
candy. Parents also inadvertently hurt their children by "protecting"
them from nudity, sex, bacteria, cold weather, household chores,
criticism, and disappointments.
Parents can also irritate their children by forcing them to do things
that prehistoric parents could not have done, such as forcing their
children to learn a certain musical instrument, or practice a certain
sport, or enter beauty pageants.
Children must learn how to become an adult, but modern parents are
often interfering with that process by protecting their children from
disappointments and frustration, and by providing them with whatever
makes them happy. Those parents are interfering with the child's
development rather than preparing them for life.
Children must become accustomed to the foods that they should be
eating, not the foods that they want to eat. They must learn how to
deal with problems, criticism, and disappointments, rather than be
protected by their mother. They must learn how to interact with other
people and form friendships, rather than develop friendships with
animals and television characters. They also need to develop a useful
skill so that they can contribute to society.
Parents that pamper their children are interfering with the
development of their children. Children need parents who behave more
similar to military
drill sergeants, but that type of parent can result in a child
complaining that he is being abused.
Our emotions cause us to assume that women and children who whine about
being abused are truly suffering, and that was probably true in
prehistoric times, but today women and children are whining for all
sorts of nonsensical and selfish reasons.
It is foolish for us to assume that a woman or a child who is
complaining about being abused has truly been abused. Today we must
investigate both
the victims of abuse, and the people accused of abuse, and determine
who is truly being abused.
Some of the people who whine about abuse are mentally ill, such as the
women who lie about being raped, and some victims arrange for
themselves to become victims so that they can manipulate people, such
as the Jews who spray
swastikas on gravestones or their home.
|
|
|
|
2)
|
|
Children misinterpret their mother's
behavior
A child can misinterpret his mother's behavior as being abusive as a
result of his selfishness, ignorance, and low level of intelligence.
For example, when a mother denies a child the toy, food, pet animal, or
clothing item that he is asking her for, he might interpret her
behavior as abusive rather than to protect his health, or to avoid
wasting the family's money on an unnecessary item.
Likewise, when a mother makes her child clean his bedroom, or do
household chores, he might misinterpret her behavior as treating him
like a slave, and denying him the opportunity to enjoy life.
The children who are the most selfish, stupid, or mentally disturbed
are the most likely to misinterpret their mother's behavior as being
abusive. This brings up a very important concept. Specifically, the
more badly behaved a child is, the more likely his mother will
occasionally lose her temper and yell at, insult, or hit the child.
That can result in the child believing that he is being abused, and it
can result in other adults assuming that the mother is abusive.
A mother of a badly behaved child might also react by becoming so
frustrated that she often ignores the child, which can result in the
child misinterpreting the situation as a mother who doesn't like him,
and it can result in other adults assuming that the mother is
neglecting her children.
Men are more violent than women, so a father who has a badly behaved
child is more likely than the mother to respond with insults, anger,
and violence.
We have such a strong craving to protect children that our natural
assumption is that a child who has been hit by his father is a
wonderful, innocent child, and that the father is violent. Likewise, we
have a craving to protect women, so also we assume that when a man hits
a woman, the men is violent and the woman is innocent. However, in
reality, these assumptions are usually incorrect.
An analysis of the women and children who have been hit by their
husbands or fathers would show that most of them are so badly behaved
that they triggered the man's anger emotion. They are not a random
sample of the female or child population.
This issue is complicated by the fact that some men are suffering from
problems that cause their anger emotion to be triggered abnormally
easily. This results in their wives and children being hit for behavior
that the higher-quality men would deal with in a more intelligent
manner.
Modern humans must understand that men, women, and children have a
temper for an important reason. Specifically, we lose our temper when
we become irritated to a certain extreme, and during prehistoric times,
that usually occurred only when somebody was truly behaving badly. In
such a case, the person who lost his temper would react to the badly
behaved person by hitting, yelling at, or killing him. It was nature's
way of allowing uneducated and stupid animals to deal with bad behavior.
During prehistoric times, people would usually lose their temper for
sensible reasons, such as when somebody was truly abusive, but when
people settled into cities, they began losing their temper over events
in which their anger was detrimental. For example, children today are
losing their temper when they don't get a candy bar that they want, and
men are losing their temper when somebody beats them in a recreational
activity.
Furthermore, the human race has been degrading genetically during the
past few thousand years, and this has resulted in an increase in the
number of people who have defects that cause them to lose their temper
abnormally easily.
It is no longer sensible for us to deal with bad behavior by losing our
temper and hitting or insulting people. We must now make intelligent
decisions about whose behavior is inappropriate, and we must deal with
those people in a more sensible manner, such as prohibiting them from
reproducing, evicting them, euthanizing them, or putting them on
restrictions.
|
As mentioned in other documents, when there is anarchy, the people who
rise to leadership positions tend to be "abnormal". They are people
with abnormally intense cravings for status, or members of crime
networks, or people who are abnormally unhappy, selfish, aggressive, or
abusive. The women who are getting in positions of importance today are
examples.
They are not
providing
women
with leadership. Instead of providing intelligent analyses of our
social problems, and suggesting sensible experiments to improve our
lives, they encourage women
to whine about men. They encourage women to
feel sorry
for themselves, and imagine that they are innocent victims of abusive
men.
This Constitution requires people in influential positions to meet
higher standards than the public, so people like Rebecca Reid should be
disqualified as a
City Elder, and removed from influential positions.
Most
influential women are female versions of Pigpen, but they
spread bad
attitudes instead of dirt.
|
Allowing Rebecca Reid to be a leader for the women is as idiotic as
allowing a spoiled child with ADHD, alcohol problems, and bipolar
disorder to become the leader for a group of children.
It is also
as
idiotic as allowing a group of billionaires, pedophiles, and Zionist
Jews to become the leaders of our nations, businesses, schools,
and other organizations.
By restricting the Women's Division officials to those who are in the
best mental health and have above-average intelligence, the women will
have leaders who are good role models, and who can investigate their
complaints, providing intelligent analyses, and help them develop
suggestions on how to improve their lives.
The women will have
leaders who can acknowledge the evidence that men, women, and children
are just a species of ape. The women will have leaders who make them
realize that neither men nor
women are better than the other, and that both men and women can be
badly behaved. The women will be encouraged to look for ways to improve
life, rather than whine about men.
|