Thanks to Tourmalayne for supplementing the past predictions, I'm looking forward to the various comparisons and expansions that will arise from the communication with galactic friends, as well as the exciting experiences!
I don't have much to add about the Earth journey at the moment, but I can provide some ideas about the topic of this time.
Firstly, in modern society, men, mostly Western men, tend to excessively protect women's survival advantages.
A classic description is that if a ship is about to sink and lifejackets or lifeboats are only enough for half of the people, men should give the advantage of survival to women. This is gentlemanly, what men should do, and it was indeed reasonable in past times. In the past, communities, societies, or countries often faced the overall threat of losing a few percentage points or even dozens of percentage points of their population. Therefore, ensuring the survival interests of women is crucial, while men can relatively bear the vast majority of non natural death risks as consumables.
This thinking pattern has largely continued into modern times, but modern society is much safer and more stable, at least in normal cognition. So a reasonable and flexible strategy is to consider the overall threat level faced by society or the country, as well as the natural average life expectancy and suicide rate of men and women, when adjusting the ratio of men and women in high-risk occupations and other policies involving gender interests. If women provide more support and love to men, allowing them to take on the majority of risks while feeling good, it may also be great. In short, when there is an initiative or policy that squeezes women's interests and strengthens men's interests, men should not always oppose it reflexively. Men should realize that treating the protection of women's interests as a rigid moral dogma and political correctness is irrational and outdated. The change of men is also crucial, as they play a more proactive and rational role in changing society, not to mention that the biggest obstacle to improving male welfare now actually comes from men.
In a simple theory, if a policy is reasonable and beneficial to society as a whole, the ratio of males to females among its supporters should be 1:1. Considering that women are not very good at policy analysis, if the policy is complex, there will be fewer female supporters, which is a normal situation. If the policy is about public safety or environmental protection, we will see this situation. However, once the policy is about the interests of a specific gender, the gender ratio of supporters may be seriously imbalanced. This can be understood as the Earth people have some psychological trauma and distortion, that is, if a policy is unreasonable but directly beneficial to a certain group, then that group itself will hardly stand up to oppose it; If the policy is reasonable but directly detrimental to the group, then the group will hardly stand up to support it, in short, they will hardly stand up to cut their own interests, and often remain silent. This does not mean that they are really so greedy or selfish, but they feel that taking the initiative to cut their own interests makes them look foolish, easy to bully, and will be laughed at. They have been bullied and laughed at too much by bad people in the past, and lack the proper guidance and demonstration, which has caused a lot of psychological distortion and difficulty in grasping a more neutral perspective and broader interests. So, an obvious solution is that men and women with higher awareness output correct guidance and demonstration, gradually heal and transform more and more people, and form positive feedback, which will take some time.
Another idea comes to my mind is to relax the moral and legal constraints of marriage, make marriage agreements more flexible and personalized; establish and strengthen a community collective parenting system to downplay the importance of parenting by the original parents. In this way, men and women have more opportunities to love more women and men, which helps them consider each other's collective interests more.
Another idea is to establish a sophisticated social credit rating system to well label men who hurt women, of course, including various other criminals, and to label the people who make special contributions or good deeds with positive labels. The description of labels should have openness to prevent people from oversimplifying their understanding of others. Reasonably set the recidivism reinforcement mode and decay rate of the labels, so that negative labels are not permanent and very sad. The identification of labels can be achieved through biometric technology, as well as active and passive electronic transponders. In this way, women can accurately discriminate against some men, rather than systematically discriminating against all men.
Oh people can get so mad when you criticize modern feminism 😃 They base their "being on the right side" self-esteem on it. When they lose that they feel their lack of love. Very strong hypnosis too. I just accepted long ago that very few are even able to think two thoughts in a neutral logic line.
Sounds true and correct more or less but I don't think theres any chance of changes unless and until some bigger external things change first.
I imagine if ppl someday learn about the big picture of life in the galaxy, they might change their perspective on this issue, but as things are, I don't think there's a chance.
Hurry up and land.
I need med bed healing.
Sorry but that’s all I care about.
Being unwell has put me in a narcissistic bubble. Once healed, I will go to the ends of earth to heal this place.
Thanks to Tourmalayne for supplementing the past predictions, I'm looking forward to the various comparisons and expansions that will arise from the communication with galactic friends, as well as the exciting experiences!
I don't have much to add about the Earth journey at the moment, but I can provide some ideas about the topic of this time.
Firstly, in modern society, men, mostly Western men, tend to excessively protect women's survival advantages.
A classic description is that if a ship is about to sink and lifejackets or lifeboats are only enough for half of the people, men should give the advantage of survival to women. This is gentlemanly, what men should do, and it was indeed reasonable in past times. In the past, communities, societies, or countries often faced the overall threat of losing a few percentage points or even dozens of percentage points of their population. Therefore, ensuring the survival interests of women is crucial, while men can relatively bear the vast majority of non natural death risks as consumables.
This thinking pattern has largely continued into modern times, but modern society is much safer and more stable, at least in normal cognition. So a reasonable and flexible strategy is to consider the overall threat level faced by society or the country, as well as the natural average life expectancy and suicide rate of men and women, when adjusting the ratio of men and women in high-risk occupations and other policies involving gender interests. If women provide more support and love to men, allowing them to take on the majority of risks while feeling good, it may also be great. In short, when there is an initiative or policy that squeezes women's interests and strengthens men's interests, men should not always oppose it reflexively. Men should realize that treating the protection of women's interests as a rigid moral dogma and political correctness is irrational and outdated. The change of men is also crucial, as they play a more proactive and rational role in changing society, not to mention that the biggest obstacle to improving male welfare now actually comes from men.
In a simple theory, if a policy is reasonable and beneficial to society as a whole, the ratio of males to females among its supporters should be 1:1. Considering that women are not very good at policy analysis, if the policy is complex, there will be fewer female supporters, which is a normal situation. If the policy is about public safety or environmental protection, we will see this situation. However, once the policy is about the interests of a specific gender, the gender ratio of supporters may be seriously imbalanced. This can be understood as the Earth people have some psychological trauma and distortion, that is, if a policy is unreasonable but directly beneficial to a certain group, then that group itself will hardly stand up to oppose it; If the policy is reasonable but directly detrimental to the group, then the group will hardly stand up to support it, in short, they will hardly stand up to cut their own interests, and often remain silent. This does not mean that they are really so greedy or selfish, but they feel that taking the initiative to cut their own interests makes them look foolish, easy to bully, and will be laughed at. They have been bullied and laughed at too much by bad people in the past, and lack the proper guidance and demonstration, which has caused a lot of psychological distortion and difficulty in grasping a more neutral perspective and broader interests. So, an obvious solution is that men and women with higher awareness output correct guidance and demonstration, gradually heal and transform more and more people, and form positive feedback, which will take some time.
Another idea comes to my mind is to relax the moral and legal constraints of marriage, make marriage agreements more flexible and personalized; establish and strengthen a community collective parenting system to downplay the importance of parenting by the original parents. In this way, men and women have more opportunities to love more women and men, which helps them consider each other's collective interests more.
Another idea is to establish a sophisticated social credit rating system to well label men who hurt women, of course, including various other criminals, and to label the people who make special contributions or good deeds with positive labels. The description of labels should have openness to prevent people from oversimplifying their understanding of others. Reasonably set the recidivism reinforcement mode and decay rate of the labels, so that negative labels are not permanent and very sad. The identification of labels can be achieved through biometric technology, as well as active and passive electronic transponders. In this way, women can accurately discriminate against some men, rather than systematically discriminating against all men.
Well, that's about it for now.
Thank you, Tourmalayne!:)
Oh people can get so mad when you criticize modern feminism 😃 They base their "being on the right side" self-esteem on it. When they lose that they feel their lack of love. Very strong hypnosis too. I just accepted long ago that very few are even able to think two thoughts in a neutral logic line.
Sounds true and correct more or less but I don't think theres any chance of changes unless and until some bigger external things change first.
I imagine if ppl someday learn about the big picture of life in the galaxy, they might change their perspective on this issue, but as things are, I don't think there's a chance.