Childless Cat Lady (Taylor Swift)

Have you read the post READ around the world by TAYLOR SWIFT?

Directly after the 2024 Presidential Debate, Taylor Swift endorsed democratic presidential candidate, Kamala Harris. Her reason for endorsing Harris she said was due to a number of reasons, but we all know it is directly related to how horribly Donald Trump and JD Vance demean women, brown people, LGBT community, immigrants, well, EVERYONE.

Her picture accompanying her post was of her with a cat referencing JD Vance saying CHILDLESS CAT WOMEN do not have a stake in what happens to the country. Effectively saying, women without children vote does not mean anything. I believe Taylor Swift and other women who are SINGLE and CHILDLESS will prove him WRONG.

In the debate, Kamala Harris said America is tired of the OLD PLAYBOOK and it's time to turn the page. WE WON'T GO BACK! Saying women of a certain age who are not married and who do not have children IS a part of an old playbook instituted and perpetuated by MEN. 

If diamonds are a girl's best friend, then what is her enemy? If you answered time or her age, you would be correct if it was your answer before the 20th century.

If people could live forever in good health at a particular age, it would be 50, according to a 2013 Harris Poll. Gender and geography play a role in the age a person decides is the ideal age to remain for a lifetime. In the poll, men said the perfect age is 47, and women 53. In the Midwest, the perfect age is 50. In the East, it’s 53 and the West it’s 47. Notice, the perfect age is not under 30 like most would believe.

Aging is a natural and inevitable process that encompasses the gradual changes which occur in an individual's body and mind over time. For women, aging was not seen as attractive for them as it was and remains for men.  But do you know at what age a person looks the best? According to a study published in the Journal of Royal Society open access, people look their best in their 30's. There have been countless movies made, in the past, where a woman can be seen crying on her thirtieth birthday.

Today in the U.S., the median first age at marriage for women is 28. For men, it’s 30. From the 18th century up until the mid-20th century, the average age at first marriage dropped to a low of age 20 for women and age 22 for men. Then it began to rise again.

This an important piece of information because at one time, a woman, by her age alone, would be viewed as favorably as outdated milk if she was not married by a certain age. Like milk which has been in the refrigerator past its "use by date," society was reluctant to take a smell to check if it was still usable. A woman past a certain age was tossed out (by society), like the milk, not fit for consumption or use.

Before the 17th century, women who weren’t married were called maids, virgins or “puella,” the Latin word for “girl.” These words emphasized youth and chastity, and they presumed that women would only be single for a small portion of their life – a period of “pre-marriage.” But by the 17th century, new terms, such as “spinster” and “single woman,” emerged. If you were not married by a certain age, your youth was gone, and your virginal sensuality went out the door with it. Some would go as far to say it was the essence of femininity lost.

Spinning, making wool, was commonly done by unmarried women; hence the word came to denote an unmarried woman in legal documents from the 1600s to the early 1900s. By 1719, the word spinster was being used generically for woman still unmarried and beyond the usual age for it. As a denotation for unmarried women in a legal context, the term dates back to at least 1699, and was commonly used in banns of marriage of the Church of England where the prospective bride was described as a "spinster of this parish".

Age is a crucial part of the definition, according to Robin Lakoff's explanation in Language and Woman's Place: "If someone is a spinster, by implication she is not eligible [to marry]; she has had her chance and been passed by. Hence, a girl of twenty cannot be properly called a spinster: she still has a chance to be married". Yet other sources on terms describing a never-married woman indicate that the term applies to a woman as soon as she is of legal age or age of majority.

Fast forward to our present time, and women are met yet again with the idea if she is past a certain age and unmarried, then there must be a reason why men passed her by, and she is no longer a good marital prospect.

According to men who are listening to relationship advice about women in the Manosphere and Red Pill Community, woman's market value is at her highest between the ages of 16 and 25 (possibly up to 30 if she really takes care of herself and is lucky). During this age range, women are at their most attractive to men. They can rely on their looks and sexiness to attract guys (and often, manipulate men for their own gain.  

According to this group of men in this community, as a woman reaches 30 and beyond, her market value decreases, and she becomes less attractive to men. Once she reaches menopause, she's finished, and no man wants her anymore. 

Contrast this with how men age and what aging means to a man's market value. A young boy in his late teens or 20's is not yet his most attractive to women. He is still seen as a boy and not yet a man. As a man gets towards 30, his market value rapidly increases. He starts to look more manly in his appearance, and he starts to act more manly in his personality because he is maturing. Often, he has more career and financial success too. All these traits increase his market value and therefore his attractiveness towards women.

There is a time in a woman's life, also according to the manosphere, where she is considered, "Used Up.' This is when a girl can no longer pair-bond properly due to repeated failed relationships. This seems to reflect the condition of her 'heart' and has nothing to do with biology. But suggests, the innocent, youthful, even virginal quality of a young woman no longer exists due to experiences gained through relationships. This would make one assume, no one wants a jaded marital partner, so pass her by. Her time has expired.

Biologically, many argue that women are in their reproductive prime age for women in their 20's to early 30's. This phase is often referred to as the "prime years." After surveying over 16,000 individuals across eight different countries who were all asked at what ages they think men and women are most beautiful, the data found the overall average age where women are found to be most attractive is 28. Women tend to experience accelerated aging around the ages of 30 and 50, according to a study that analyzed a wide range of molecular and physical markers. Science indicates there is a biological change in a woman's life, but not to the extent of warranting being labeled as "Used Up."

Podcaster Pearl Davis's (@JustPearlyThings) videos, is a strong supporter of the idea that a woman can only be high value until her late 30's. She has often voiced outrage against the body positivity movement because to her, weight has a lot to do with whether or not a woman is capable of being a worthy partner to a man. According to Davis, a high-value woman only ever wants a family and children, and if a woman doesn't want that, she's not worth much.  Female sexuality is another sore spot for many such high-value content creators. Jebediah Bila (@JebediahBilaLIVE), with a massive following of 125,000 subscribers, regularly speaks up about it. In her eyes, a woman's value is surely influenced by how active she is sexually and ruins her prospects at landing a good partner. Chances are the older the unmarried woman is, the higher the probability she has had numerous sex partners. Their goes the loss of that virginal quality again. You now must be labeled a spinster.

Women who were once called spinsters eventually started being called old maids. The term "old maid" is old-fashioned and derogatory, and it's not considered polite to use to describe a woman who is unmarried. However, in the past, a woman over the age of 25 who was unmarried was considered an old maid. In the 17th century, New Englanders also used the term "thornback" to describe single women over 25. In the late 1690s, the term old maid became common. The expression emphasizes the paradox of being old and yet still virginal and unmarried.

These unmarried women, who had to be labeled for society to know how to view and treat them had not only lost their youthful value, innocence, and desired virginal quality, they were viewed as unhappy also. It was unconceivable that an unmarried woman could be happy. The labels given, spinster and old maid, indicated the only thing she was able to do was spin yarn, cook, and/or clean. Her life compared to that of a married woman of that time who also spun yarn, cooked, and/or cleaned was that the married woman did it for husband and children while she was alone.

A 2014 Brookings Institute study on happiness and age found that people are least happy in their 20's, 30's, and early 40's, and steadily gain an appreciation for life as they age. Indeed, most women become increasingly happy after age 55, with their peak of happiness toward the very end of life! Aging is commonly measured by chronological age. As a convention, a person over age 65 is often referred to as elderly. Typically, muscle mass and strength increase steadily from birth and reach their peak at around 30 to 35 years of age. After that, muscle power and performance decline slowly and linearly at first, and then faster after age 65 for women and 70 for men.

The expiration dates on women were effectively taken of during the 20th century only to see a resurgence in this century. The value of a woman married or unmarried still revolves around how desired she is by men. If this is the standard to judge a woman's value or worth to a society, her marital suitability, then a majority of women are spinsters, old maids, and low-value women.

Since we live in a world guided by science, women do not have to embrace these labels. Men do not have such labels. Correction, I do believe there is a low value man, but the term is not part of the mainstream. With such an emphasis placed on female youthfulness, innocence, and virginity, it would seem our society would be ripe with pedophiles. The prevalence of pedophilic disorder is unknown, as the social stigma around it does not invite people to self-identify. Estimates of its prevalence range from one to five percent of the male. population. 

Thankfully, through showing and not just saying, women have shown they don't have to be thrown out by any obscure expiration date. Women choose at what age they want to marry if they marry at all. Lately, thanks to vice presidential nominee JD Vance, it's okay to be the unmarried cat lady. 

If you read my blog, you will notice I look at the way history has defined women and womanhood. History has not been kind to the ladies and for sure not to the single lady. I believe the greatest part about being a woman is how we define ourselves. We are always writing that history. Taylor Swift decided to let her voice and vote be known. We are at a time in history where women are deciding how they want to be defined in the future. The overwhelming sentiment, in unison by women is, WE WON'T GO BACK!

Men Want Women - Badly

     

    I would probably not be too far off the mark if I guessed men would consider it a declaration of WAR if a woman wrote a book about MANHOOD.

    In online communities, there is a large amount of chatter among men saying women are destroying manhood. Men are voicing their distress and proclaiming the tides have turned and women have more rights than men in the jucicial system and work arena. Many men see women as feminizing America. When saying America is becoming feminized, they mean women are insisting men be more compassionate, be more in touch with their feelings, and stop demonstrating toxic masculinity. There are critics of these men and their ideas of manhood being under attack by women, who outright dismiss their feelings of being emasculated by women and society at large. I say, NOT SO FAST.

    Just because a person does not agree completely with another person does not mean there isn't some modicum of truth being said. If there is a large group of people saying the same thing, 'men are facing a manhood crisis', then maybe we should take time to see if there is any validity to the outcry. I will circle back to women writing about manhood in a minute. Bare with me for a moment as I give some context to why men may be feeling marginalized in society.

    According to a 2017 Pew Research Center survey, 53% of American people say they look up to men who are manly or masculine. So,we do understand the feeling of being manly and masculine is important to men and by others. But suprisingly, only 31% of men view themselves as masculine, 54% view themselves as somewhat masculine, and 15% of men view themselves as not masculine. These are some eye-opening statistics about men by men. Men feeling less than masculine is present in men before women are even brought into the equation.

    The well-known men's magazine GQ conducted a 2019 survey of 1,005 American men about masculinity. The survey found 59% of the men considered themselves completely masculine, 40% considered themselves masculine with at least some feminine traits, and 44% of the men have gotten into a physical fight in their lifetime. If these results, let alone the possible questions asked, have you scratching your head, you're not alone. The questions asked, it seems, would definitely cause some problems for the respondent on a core level if gotten wrong. The structure of the questions asked, put men on the defensive to protect himself from being labeled as womanly. This is evident by the answer, "Have you been in a fight?" Agressiveness has long been one of the traits which makes a man manly. This is why there is a rise in toxic masculinity. Men are pressured to be agressive.This brings me to my next point and statistics.

    One third of American men (36%) feel under pressure to behave in a masculine way. Over half (58%) feel society expects them to be "emotionally strong and to show no weakness." More than half (53%) of American men aged 18-34 feel pressure to be manly compared to only 15% of men over the age of 55. Sixty percent of American men agree society puts pressure on men in a way that is unhealthy or bad. The two areas in which men are pressured to show their masculinity and manliness is in the area of their weight (physical fitness) and finances. This brings us to the biggest area of complaint men are having - relationships with the opposite sex - or the lack thereof. Men are deeply upset with what they desire the most, women. On the online communities offering support and understanding to men facing disappointment, frustration, and anger at being rejected by women based on their appearance and income, misogynistic dating advice is offered to get them in  the 'game'. Setting the dating advice aside, men are struggling in being in a relationship with women they desire.

    Nearly half of U.S. adults (47%) say dating is harder today for most people compared with 10 years ago, while a third say it is about the same, and 19% say it’s easier today. Sevent-five percent of men ages 50 and older say it is harder for men to know how to behave on dates compared with 63% of men younger than 50. Another reason dating has become harder is that people are not looking for the same type of relationship according to 53% of respondents. Surprisingly, this same study found 61% of men say they are currently looking for a relationship or dates compared to 38% of single women. Ouch! That's surprising because women declare men are not interested in relationships; only sex. Sevent-five percent of daters say it has been very/somewhat difficult in the last year to find people to date and only 5% said it has been easy. There is a lot of rejection going on in the dating world. Men are going through it on many levels. No wonder there is an outcry. There is pain.

    Now back to why a woman can write about manhood. 

    Manhood is not a mystical mythological entity. Manhood has been demonstrated througout the ages. There are three pillars of manhood, through my research, that allows for the best demonstration of manhood, which are providor, protector, procreator. Men have alsways been able to occupy these roles with little effort or competition. The one thing that made the pillars of this defined manhood so strong was because it was demonstrated through physical stregnth. 

The strong man could provide, protect, and every woman would want to procreate with him. But we live in a time where physical stregnth is no longer needed for safety, survival, and no longer sought after sexually. Advancements in technology on a monumental scale, made the playing field level and the skinniest, frailest, person can still provide, protect, and procreate at the push of a button. Manhood is in competition with advancements in technology. Now a woman, without physical stregnth, can provide, protect, and decide on a wider scale whom she wants to procreate with if at all. Technology is a mind game (woman's stregnth) and no longer a physical game (man's stregnth).

For centuries, men could offer their brute stregnth as an asset and it was enough for every need possible. His body was made to be a fighter, hunter, leader, and producer of children in large numbers. None of those manly demonstrations of manhood are needed in the technological society we live in today. The advice given to men in the MANOSPHERE telling men to beef up their muscles and to be stoic in relationships will be the key to having long-term relationships. 

    During two points in history, masculinity was not demonstrated through physical attributes of the man. During the Roman Empire, men lounged and dined, took group baths with other men, and sought entertainment through art, music, and watching sports. Working was a no-no for men of status and power. In Europe and later America, the wealthy did not work and looked down on men who relied on their muscles for living. Men hunted small game, danced, read, and concerned themselves in dressing in fine clothes. Once again, muscles used for living was looked down upon. Men are in a time now, where manhood, demonstrated by physicality, is not what is desired.

    The focus of men on DATING or how to have their choice in women, will not accomplish what they want - SUCCESS in ALL areas of their lives. In my opinion, men should focus on determining what type of man or manhood does the 21st Century need to fit all of the advancements society has had. Men have to figure out how they, alone or in a relationship, thrive in their 'push a button' reality. An important question men should also ask is, "Who is raising men to be men?"

    

    The United States has the highest total of single mother households in the world. As of 2023, 15.9 million U.S. households are single mother households and 3.5 million are single father households. Twenty-four million, 1/3 of U.S. children under the age of 18 live in single parent households according to another U.S. poll. These are single mother household with young boys being raised to be men. It has been proven, the same sex parent has the biggest influence on the same sex child. Fathers have the most influence on sons and mothers on daughters. Women must fill the gap of the boys same sex biggest influencer not being present. No finger pointing for blame, just recognition there is a large number of single mothers raising sons, future MEN.

    We must have women, who are mothers, who will be influencing the health (physical/mental/spritual/sexual/financial/relational/emotional) of future men engaged in the discussion of what healthy manhood and masculinity looks like and how it is demonstrated in private and public life. Someone has to step in to address the concerns and belief that MANHOOD (in its current definition) is no longer needed nor has no place in society. This does not require a new, conjured-up, spliced together definition of manhood for the 21st century. For some reason, men stopped teaching and instilling in young boys what is needed for a man to live in the society they are living in. Now, men want to teach a MANHOOD that worked in a past society, which is destined to fail. Manhood always adjusts to what is happening in society and EDUCATION is what is happening in today's WORLD (I will blog about education in a later post). The definition of manhood, must be demonstrated in optimum ways which benefit him and all of those in his orbit.

    Will men be on board with women discussing, writing, debating manhood? NO. But it remains necessary. It can be a gateway in offering a viable solution to many of the problems men are voicing in the Manosphere. The one true thing about manhood is IT IS BEST DEMONSTRATED IN RELATIONSHIPS. Yes, while doing research on manhood I discovered this and it will be my theme whenever I talk about manhood. To demonstrate providor, protector, procreator - you must have someone to provide for, protect, and procreate with. Will men buy my book on manhood? Probably not, but men don't usually buy any books written by a woman author (only 19%). So hopefully, more women will research what manhood means and what it does not mean and do not get pulled into unnessary arguments about manhood. I hope both men and women understand a person is male because of biology but manhood is taught and learned. 

 ***Material used in this blog post from my manuscript on Manhood.*** More material to come in future.

Please like, share, follow, comment.

    

Should Women Write About Manhood?

Sexual Desirability of Women Decline

 

What does it mean when the Red Pill community says a woman "hits the wall?" If you have been following my blog, you know there is a community called the Red Pill. This group originated on Reddit and became a place for men who believed the ills of society were caused by women and now men are not allowed to complain about the chaos women have created to vent. They also believe society favors women over men in many areas especially in the judicial system.

Many of the Red Pill men are confused and frustrated in the dating arena by the way women choose to reject and accept the men they date. This frustration has turned into hostility towards women in the way men view and define today's woman. The men have developed a new vocabulary describing women and the men who interact with them. Various strategies have been proposed by men for men in how to get and keep a woman. 

The group has developed a hypothesis stating a woman hits A WALL. Hitting the wall means:

1.    A point at which a woman is no longer sexually desirable to men

2.    Her looks and shapely figure has faded, and with it the power she had to command money, attention, and expensive dates from men.

The Wall Theory is based on the assumption women, in their youth, could give the slightest hint that sex may be on the table and that was enough of a motivation to get horny men to do almost anything. The youthful manipulative woman would play the gullible men with the promise of sex. The young woman would wear revealing clothing, short dresses, swish their hips, and stare at men seductively to get any and everything she wanted. Her promise of sex allowed her access to vacations, material items, even the ultimate sacrifice of marriage from men. 

This theory puts forth the notion that women hit the Wall after age 26 because at age 18-25 her attractiveness has peaked and beginning at age 26 her attractiveness starts to decline. A woman's Sexual Market Value (SMV), to men who find her attractive and who she can use the promise of sex declines in the dating market. Once she reaches the age of 30-35, her SMV is shot, and she has to settle for a "Nice Guy" in hopes of having a comfortable life.

This community of men believes the opposite happens to men. Around 30 the men start hitting their stride in terms of looks, social status, and money. A man 30-35 is the most confident, handsome, and successful making him more desirable to women. The 30–35-year-old man chooses to date younger women leaving the 30 something year old woman out in the cold. The 30 something year old woman is therefore in a panic to try to get a man. This group believes the Wall for men is age 50 when women no longer find them attractive.

Should women be in a panic fearing this WALL at age 30 and beyond? I believe everyone at some age acknowledges the fading of their youthful looks, but many embrace their mature beauty. Sexiness is not a number. and to be fair, if a woman uses sex to get what she wants you better believe she can do it at any age. Today's grandmother looks nothing like the grandma of the 70's or 80's. The definition of what makes a woman attractive has changed due to the fact women are attractive physically at a range of ages. Beauty is measured beyond the pretty face to include intelligence and personality. The pool of beautiful women is so prominent until the standard had to include more attributes beyond the "pretty face."

The women who Red Pill men have labeled as the prime woman to date realize these men are hyper-sexualized and bounce from one woman to the next in recreational sex and they are not interested in them either as a mate. Men are not proposing to women in the age range of 18-25 when they as they say are at their peak of attractiveness, let alone women ages 26-30. There is an incorrect assumption by men that women are using their time/sexual peak to play around and manipulate men as long as they can. It is men whom history speaks of as sowing their wild oats, not women. Studies have shown women want relationships and get emotionally involved in sexual relationships when for men, they can have sexual encounters without emotional attachment.

Red Pill men believe their Wall is at age 50 when they are less desired by women. I believe men hit an earlier wall of undesirability. Young men ages 18-27 spend these years trying to earn quick money straight out of high school to spend on going out prowling for women with their male friends and hitting the club scene. Their boy group is important to them for socializing. The young men 18-27 have a group of guy friends they enjoy spending their time with talking about women and sports. The money of the youthful male is spent on his vehicle, video games, and for some the best footwear like Jordans. Here and there they have fathered a child or two. 

Once these young men realize their male friends no longer offer the type of companionship that goes beyond fun, they then want a lasting relationship with a woman. This is where their Wall comes into play. Because the young men sowed his wild oats with encouragement by society with no thought for his future, he is not a good candidate for marriage. He still lives at home with his mother, does not have a job which allows him to have an apartment or home to bring a wife to, and has several baby mommas and child support lessening his monetary value, women are turned off by him. Men in their late 20's are in a panic after wasting their youth playing around with other men. 

Statistic and research show women are graduating college in record numbers preparing for their financial future while men of the same age say they don't attend college because they don't want to, see no value in it, and finances prevents them from doing so. So, if women hit a Wall around the age of 26-35 due to fading beauty, men hit a Wall around the age of 27-35 due to financial inadequacy. The existence of the Red Pill community demonstrates there is a panic among men ages 27-35 also.

It seems both sexes are finding the dating world difficult from the ages 26 and beyond for various reasons. There may be a number of hypotheses floating around for the reason why it's hard to find a mate. While researching my book Manhood Interrupted An Answer For The Red Pill Man I found that it is the criteria we are demanding a potential mate must have that is the problem.  

Social media has introduced us to the most beautiful men and women we have ever seen right at our fingertips. In our consumer age, the 21st Century, we believe we should have the best of everything. Top quality. We, ourselves may not be top quality but we feel entitled to the best. I use top quality and best loosely just because someone is beautiful does not make them the best or top quality. But our eyes have come to lead our brains. A person of good character is overshadowed by our desire to have a trophy mate. Companionship and unconditional love no longer rank higher than looks and money. The decline is not in the other person but in ourselves. If we had to honestly rank our own attractiveness it may be a solid 4 or 5, but we want a person ranking 10 or above. We are the reason/source for our own disappointment in the dating game.

It seems to bring the single man joy that the 30 something single woman is struggling to find a suitable mate. But isn't it a situation where the pot is calling the kettle black?

KEEP AN EYE OUT FOR MY SOON TO BE RELEASED BOOK: Manhood Interrupted An Answer For the Red Pill Man. DON'T FORGET TO FOLLOW ME TO GET MY LATEST BLOG POST AND COMMENT TO LET ME KNOW YOU'RE ENJOYING MY POSTS 

 

CULTS and Trump

 WHY ARE PEOPLE BELIEVING TRUMP IS SENT BY GOD? ARE THEY DEMONSTRATING SIGNS OF FOLLOWING A CULT LEADER?

    My daughters jokingly say they were raised in a "cult" and I was the cult leader. This in one way is flattering because cult leaders are extremely charismatic and make people feel loved, accepted, and as if they belong and matter. But cult leaders have a bad side also. It is said they use brainwashing techniques to attract and keep their followers. The followers identify with the cult leaders on some or many levels and admire them greatly. I in no way, shape, or form wanted my daughters to be followers. The parenting skills I believed I was implementing were intended to shape, form, and mold free thinkers. 

    When looking at the definition of a cult leader I found myself disagreeing with it. Religion and religious groups are only described as able to have a cult following, by one resource's definition. Of course, there are several infamous cults which center around religion such as David Koresh, Charles Manson, and Jim Jones. But not ALL cults are religious. Religious cult leaders claim to have direct contact or revelation from a God/Higher Power/ or from the Universe giving them insight/understanding/information/special knowledge that the members do not/cannot possess. In some cases, the leader tells the followers he CAN help them to come into the same awareness/knowledge/power if they follow his direction. Yes, most cult leaders are men. 

    Donald Trump is imfamous for making outlandish promises to his base. His followers do not seem to care that he is not able to deliver on many of his promises. But the really scary thing about Trump is he never objects or tell people not to put him in a savior category. He doubles down on their assessment and revels in being seen as god-like. Is he a cult leader and are his followers blind sheeps for the slaughter? Cult leaders and their followers has historically met with a bad end.

    I believe a cult leader can show up in any given area where there are people looking to be embraced. Hitler took cult leader to the highest deadliest level. Cult leaders are not just your everyday narcissists. The are what is defined as "traumatic" narcisissts. The actions of a traumatic narcissist has deleterious effects on their followers often persuading the follower into abusive situations or to carry out abuses on others. Can anyone say JANUARY 6th?

    Cult leaders are intuitive, able to read people. They thrive on chaos and create crisis situations tapping into well planted fears they have made the followers believe. Fox news is a vehicle for creating one fear after another for its viewers to grab a hold of. They are power-hungry and authoritarian. 

    One thing I find clever of the cult leader is they issue uniforms and titles. These two actions make the follower feel important and above the ordinary person in status. The uniform and title reinforces the idea the follower has a job and authority in his enlightenment within the group and over those without the revelation given to them by their leader. The MAGA hat and slogan is an example of a uniform which makes people feel part of a group, have a job, have a title, and have a mission to enlighten others. Another MOVE of the cult leader is to make tantalizing promises. His promises keeps the follower amped up in anticipation that any day the promise will come true. Hitler was a leader who used these cult practices.

There are three types of cult leaders: The Delusional Martyr, Preacher Turned Egomaniac, and the Hard and Fast Narcissist.

The Delusional Martyr: Is the most dangerous cult leader. Heaven's Gate leader, Marshall Applewhite instructed 39 members to commit mass suicide in 1997. He was convinced aliens would come to earth and take him and his followers away leaving their bodies for a higher existence. This group oriented delusion is called "Shared psychotic Disorder" according to the National Institutes of Health.

The Preacher Turned Egomaniac: May start out as a teacher, preacher, or an instructor of some sort then realizes people believe or hang onto their every word and become puffed up with such influence or his power to get people to listen to his every word. In 1978, Jim Jones, once a preacher, orchestrated the Jonestown Massacre in 1978, killing 900 people by instructing them to drink poison to commit suicide. 

The Hard and Fast Narcissist: Has been a narcissist the majority of their lives. they feel entitled to completely lie to a person or whatever they have to do to get others to believe whatever it is they are selling, whether it is God, a product, or anything. They are a bottomless pit of ego need. They are malignant narcissists and do not care about the lives they destroy, or the lies they tell, the damage they are doing, they just need to be loved, feared, adored. Many say former President Donald Trump falls into this category. 

WHICH CATEGORY DOES DONALD TRUMP AND HIS FOLLOWERS FIT INTO?

I would love to read your answer in the comments.

    The sad thing is there will always be a group of disenfranchised people, the outcast, or the person who has had enough of the way they have been negatively treated, waiting for someone to understand their plight and formulate a solution to address it. The cult leader will begin at the root of the unhappiness/discontent by saying they understand, validating the person, boosting self-esteem, and feelings of being heard. There is a formula or steps visible the cult leader takes, which those outside of the cult can plainly see. The steps are as follows.

  1.  Next the enlightenment talk begins, the ability to see the TRUTH others are blind to or are blatantly disregarding. A new vocabulary only the group is privy to forms, making the followers feel special and separated from others develops. 

  2.  Articles of clothing are introduced in some shape or form. The group takes pride in wearing the items and can be identified by them and titles are given so some sense of power and authority is bestowed upon the followers (no longer a group anymore. Leader and follower hierarchy has been established by now). 

  3.  The leader makes promises to the followers that are appealing and are told family and friends will turn against them for believing in the promises and the leader. Outsiders, or anyone who disagrees with the leader become a THREAT, ENEMY, INFERIOR. The leader makes the followers protective of him saying those who do not believe will want to destroy him with lies or even physical attacks. This is the point where the follower can become dangerous in an attempt to protect the message, doctrine, and/or leader from outside influences. The leader now has full control and can demand money or violence from the followers. The followers become weaponized by the leader. Just objects to be used as he sees fit.

    I have written a book Manhood Interrupted, But Never Destroyed, An Answer For The Red Pill Man addressing a group of men whose group has been described as a cult, in the RED PILL community. These men believe they are not treated as well as women by society Their rights as men are not recognized in the home and world at large. Women use sex to manipulate men. Women have made laws/polices beneficial to them by giving or withholding sex and thus are responsible for the bad condition of society. Women lie and call the police on men falsely claiming rape. The courts favor women in divorce awarding them the man's money/possessions and children in child custody battles. Women continually reject men in the dating scene.

    The Red Pill community have their own language, looks to a leader for instruction and ideology about women, attack outsiders or their enemy- women, verbally and on a few accounts physically. There is Red Pill apparel available for purchase, they actively recruit members usually unhappy young Republican White men, and offer comradery for men in private groups. This group checks many of the cult boxes of a cult. But what else makes a cult? The people who join the group or community. The Red Pill community and MAGA have traits of a cult.

    There are certain characteristics of those who are recruited, belong, join, connect with cults and cult leaders. People who join cults:

SEEK APPROVAL

FOLLOWERS BY NATURE, NOT LEADERS

SEEKING AN IDENTITY

SEEKING MEANING

SCHIZOTYPAL THINKING (not schizophrenic but dances on the edge and have odd beliefs/behaviors with conspiracy-type, alien-type, supernatural-type beliefs)

HIGHLY SUGGESTIBLE

CONSTANTLY BLAME OTHERS

ALWAYS ANGRY

VERY LOW SELF-ESTEEM

    Angry social media communities can easily spin into a cult. No one in America would have believed 2,000-2,500 Americans would attack the Capitol Building on January 6, 2021. People watched the news with utter shock and disbelief as rioters forced their way into the Capitol Building in an effort to overturn election results and harm employees of the government including the vice president. I can guarantee none of the people involved in the protest and attack would classify themselves as cult members but I bet their family members would. 

    The rioters, MAGA, follow a charismatic leader and hang on his every word or instruction. They believe they are understood finally by their leader. They subscribe to conspiracy theories. Those who don't believe the leader are deemed inferior, a danger, or an enemy. The leader enlists fear as a tool for action and to ensure his followers remain angry along with wild promises (he delivers many). He plays a martyr saying the media is attacking him. He dictates their source of information. The main part of the uniform is the MAGA hat. Bullying is used as an abuse tactic. The leader often proclaims his brilliance, and he is the only one who can help them and change the country/world. His blatant lies are ignored for the common good of their ideology. The leader separates followers from family who do not believe the same. He uses his power to elevate followers to positions and titles. Money flows, weapons flow, and discontent grows. Crisis after crisis only he can solve is echoed by the leader.

    In the end, a large number of followers of cult leaders end up dying. The leader eventually crosses a line in his big grab for power or relevance resulting in their death. No special enlightenment is needed to know the Cult of Trump is going to end in some form of disaster even bigger than January 6, 2021. History repeats itself.  

    This is what the Bible says about FALSE teachers (leaders) who bring truth into dispute 2 Peter 2:10-14. They are bold and arrogant.

"This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority... With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning, they SEDUCE the UNSTABLE; they are experts in GREED - an accursed brood!"

    Please by my book The Politics of Prayer in which I talk about how politics is supposed to play in the Christians life and about those elected to government positions of power. It is a book that will surely help Christians and non-Christians understand how not to let religion go astray when dealing with corruption in the government and its officials. My book is available on amazon.com

Please follow, like, comment, and share. Thank you.

RED PILL: Love Is Blind part 2

Make sure to view the first video on "Love is 

THIS IS MY SECOND VIDEO discussing the Netflix series Love Is Blind where couples date with a wall between them so they won't be influenced by physical features to see if they can fall in love with the person sight unseen.

This 'experiment' raises the important question we must ask ourselves, "Why do we choose a life-long partner? What are we looking for in  a relationship and does physical features override those needs?"

For some of the couples who believed they found love it ultimately turned into a train wreck. But for the few, love was truly blind. Great social experiment about love. A recommended to watch series. 

Hope you watched my first video first. 

RED PILL: Answers For Red Pill Men

Maybe you are not familiar with the Red Pill community. It is a community on Reddit for men who are dissatisfied with the dating environment. They say women are confusing and frustrating and they are trying to understand them in order to have a relationship with them. They share stories about approaching women they are attracted to and what unfolds. They share dating experiences and how they view single women. From these experiences the men have become angry, bitter, hopeless, and left with self-esteem issues.

This group believes women have an advantage over them in society and are favored over men. Through the use of sex (giving or withholding it) they have influenced the direction of the world for the worse. Court systems favor them in parental issues, divorce awarding them half or more of the man's income and believe women when they make false allegations such as rape against men. Women are responsible for the mess and chaos in the world and then they do not allow men to complain.

According to Briffaut's Law, which the Red Pill man is told is a truth, "The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place." In essence, she has to have a benefit to be with a man and she uses them and then discard them when they are of no use to them.

Most of the Red Pill social media activity is private making it a safe place for them to vent, encourage, and give advice to each other. Many spin off groups have come from the original Red Pill community which are anti-government, racist, and dangerous in their thought process and actions.

The Red Pillers are demonized and mocked on social media by both women and men. They are also feared by many women because they are known to harass women and their family who speak out about them in any way. I myself was threatened when I began promoting my soon to be released book Manhood Interrupted An Answer For The Red Pill Man to be released in April 2022.

It was a scary moment because of their reputation but with much prayer, I decided to continue on in my work. I am not speaking against the Red Pill community as you will see in my videos but trying to address the issues causing men frustration and anger through a look at stressors throughout history men have encountered and overcame. I am trying to give them hope that this time period which seems so difficult to them is nothing new. It has happened to men before and they adjusted and overcame those situations. Another focus of my book is how the advancement of technology changed the sex roles more so than women rejecting men and what they contribute to relationships and family dynamics.

The Red Pill community is focused more on dating. They are forming strategies and lifestyle changes to get and keep women. In many instances extreme masculinity and the Alpha male archetype is suggested for men to become more attractive to the opposite sex. Being emotionally unavailable to girlfriends and wives is encouraged. In my book I look at what being a man means, living in manhood, and how it will affect romantic relationships as well as other personal relationships.

A lot of time and research went into my book to be a resource for men, women, mothers and fathers during this time when men are trying to find their footing in a society, they believe has emasculated them in every area of life. The intent of the book is not to tell men they are wrong about their beliefs but if their belief is true what are they as men going to do about it in a healthy way.

I will be posting videos (the first couple are a little rough. But I got better and more comfortable as I went along. Be Kind) on this subject and hope to interview women and their views about the Red Pill Movement as well as men. 

As always leave comments. I answer all questions. Please pray for me and send positive energy my way. 

 

INTERVIEWS NEEDED

Hello and welcome to my blog.

I have found the best way to get the truth on a subject is to let the PEOPLE speak.

As a woman, do you want your voice heard as an author, minister, dreadlock wearer, what womanhood means, or anti-Red Pill believer? 

Then you have found the right space to address these issues and other womanhood issues. 

You and your thoughts/opinions/philosophies can impact thousands who read my daily posts helping to shape future minds. It will also be a place where men can come and be assured, they are truly reading to understand women and womanhood.

It's simple. I have formulated questions that will give insight to each of the 5 categories mentioned above. Just contact me rizerfall@yahoo.com and let me know whether you are an author, minister, dreadlock/loc wearer, want to address womanhood, or anti-Red Pill and I will e-mail you the easy questions for you to answer and e-mail back (you can share your links, business, web presence, books, and any other contact info if you desire).

I have such a love for all women, and I want to support, encourage, and empower every woman to live her best life.

Please share this opportunity with your family, friends, and social media audience to encourage and empower them also.

Thanks for stopping by and please follow this page. 

Mothers Make Homosexuals!?!?

 

     While in Seminary I had to write a paper for a class choosing one of several books to be used on a particular topic. I cannot recall the book nor the particular topic, but I do remember becoming upset with the author's point of view towards women. I had to decide whether to present my own analysis of the material as it related to the assignment or to present what I believed may be the beliefs of the instructor (which I did not know and would be guessing) or present a paper that would get me an 'A'. In the end I went with my own reaction to the material.

     The book dealt with the idea of unification of various denomination and finding common ground to bring us together and letting go of the things that divide us as long as it was not heretical teachings. The author of this particular book presented his reasonings why this would be a bad thing by drawing a parallel between the sexes, men and women.  In this book, the author began saying that their differences (men just like the different denominations) were under attack and there was a threat of manhood being lost. This made a red flag appear before my eyes. As I continued to read, his take only made more red flags dance.

     He pointed to the fact that women are pushing to declare that there is not a difference between being a man and being a woman. Women have declared that they can do anything that a man can do thus emasculating men. Women have fought for equality in the Scripture by trying to erase the distinction between the sexes also and declaring Jesus as neither masculine nor feminine. Women in essence were trying to become men and we should guard against the blurring of distinction between the sexes and denominations.

     I believe that there is a distinction between men and women and no matter how anyone tries, there will always be an identifiable difference between the sexes. A man cannot be a woman and a woman cannot be a man no matter how hard one tries. This said, many women can successfully do things that have been categorized as 'manly' and men can successfully do things that have been categorized as 'womanly.' 

    I can use a chainsaw and cut down a tree as well as any man, but at the end of the day I will still be a woman. I did not cut the tree with the intent of being a man or attacking manhood. The tree needed to be cut and I could do it. There are numerous top chefs who can outcook any woman and at the end of the day they are still men. Their ability to cook at an expert level does not erase women from the earth. As a woman I could never impregnate another woman and a man will never give birth to a baby. Stereotypes may be crossed but what makes a man a man or a woman a woman is not threatened; it can be abandoned or not lived into, but not stolen. 

    Many women are admonished to stay in their place and not to try to take the place of the man. It is strange that there is not the same amount of admonishment for the man to stay in his place and not take the place of a woman. WHY IS IT THAT THE POSITION OF THE MAN MUST BE GUARDED SO? Is it that easy to take his place? Or is so easy for it to be stepped into? The female does not seem to be so threatened by men taking womanhood away. Where are the studies on the attack on womanhood? 

    In this same vein, the church takes a strong position against homosexuality. It is the gay male more so than the lesbian that seems to cause the most distress. In the book I mentioned earlier (not by title), the author launched into the problem with women exerting so much power: IT LEADS TO HOMOSEXUAL SONS!!! This caused me to stop seeing red flags and to just see RED. Not only are women trying to be men, erase manhood from the earth, now we are making our sons love men. My paper critiqued the book for its point on Unitarianism, but also pointed out the fact that the author wrote from a bias against women and their role in the church, society, and family. 

    We know that mothers have a strong influence on their children, but I think it is too simple to say homosexuality is due to the parenting skills of the mother. If we accept this premise then we must assume fathers create lesbians, guess what, that study is still out. People seem to only really care about why men are gay. It seems to be the most offensive to people, mainly Christian men. I know the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination, but it's the only abomination singled out. I'm just talking about observations here and possibly hidden agendas (not conspiracies). Below is an article I ran across: A VACCINE TO PREVENT HOMOSEXUALITY! 

****** Women create homosexuals. Parents are easily the most important external force in the life of any child and, as would be suspected, contribute largely to the homosexual or heterosexual predisposition of their children. A professor of psychiatry at one of the nation's leading medical schools stated, "Current research indicates that the family most likely to produce a homosexual comprises a very intimate, possessive, and dominating mother and a detached, hostile father. Many mothers of lesbians tend to be hostile and competitive with their daughters. The fathers of female homosexuals seldom appear to play a dominant role in the family and have considerable difficulty being openly affectionate with their daughters."

     Most of the new books on homosexuality contain the report by Dr. Irving Bieber, who studied the family backgrounds of 106 male homosexuals. According to his discoveries, eighty-one mothers were dominating, sixty-two were overprotective, sixty-six made the homosexual their favorite child, eighty-two of the fathers spent very little time with their sons, and seventy-nine maintained a detached attitude toward them. As important as the father is in the life of a child, even he must take second place to mother during the first three years of life. She feeds the baby at her breast and spends far more time with him in infancy than does his dad. Consequently, mothers actually have more to do with producing a predisposition toward homosexuality than fathers. 

    Two kinds of mothers are particularly harmful-smother mothers and dominating mothers. 

Smother Mothers: every child needs love, but few things are worse than an overprotective, smothering affection that is showered on an infant, not for his benefit but for the mother's. Many a love-starved young mother satisfies her love hunger on her child until he is the primary object in her life. The more she bestows her affection, time, and attention on her child, the more she neglects her husband. This may turn him further from her and the child, compounding the problem. Dr. Howard Hendricks used to say in Family Seminars which he and I held together that ' ' whenever a mother makes her son number one in her life, she begins to raise a pervert. " In other words, it is normal for a boy to be number two in the heart of his mother, for he doesn't feel threatened when he knows father is number one. But when mother and father cannot preserve a love relationship and she make the child number one, he is in trouble. He may begin to identify with her, take an interest in feminine things, and develop effeminate mannerisms. Such concerns start early in life and are very difficult to break.

     One veteran homosexual in the counseling room complained that his mother was "overprotective and smothering.'' He illustrated the latter by saying, "She never hesitated to embarrass me. she thought nothing of unzipping my pants to tuck in my shirt. Between that and wiping my nose, she was all over me.'' Throughout history, researchers have repeatedly verified that homosexuals are ''mama's boys" whose mothers doted on them in their youth. Tchaikovsky, Michelangelo, and Freud are notable examples. Insecure mothers who have a need to be needed take out that compulsion on their infant or small child to the detriment of the child's personality. Some call it love, but it is not! 

    In reality, it is a form of selfishness, and it probably constitutes one of the leading causes in the rise of homosexuality. In recent years it has become fashionable for an unwed mother who heeds the advice of sexual permissives to raise her child alone. I always wince when I see this, not because a mother can't raise her son alone (my brother and I were raised by a widowed mother, and my brother was only seven weeks old when Father died, so I know it can be done), but most of those girls have the wrong motive. They are usually love-starved girls who want something living to love and often end up "smother loving" a child into a predisposition toward homosexuality. 

    Dominant Mothers: one of the sociological phenomena of our times is the enormous increase in the dominant role of the mother and the renunciation by the father of his responsibility to lead. In some cases, dominance is forced upon women because of an irresponsible husband. But nothing ruins the sexual adjustment of children more surely than an oppressive wife and mother. Such children build up an intense hostility toward the opposite sex that either makes it difficult for them to show love and affection in marriage or creates a predisposition toward homosexuality. ********

    In my opinion, THIS TYPE OF ARTICLE MAKES IT VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR A WOMAN TO RAISE ANYTHING OTHER THAN A HOMOSEXUAL SON. When trying to reach an answer to address homosexuality, it seems the mother should be removed from the household completely. Women are threat to manhood by their sheer existence. Evidently a woman needs a referee to run interference in mothering her son to vaccinate him against homosexuality. I'm sorry, but I cannot get with this article. 

     I am overprotective of my daughters and probably smothering in their view; WHAT AM I CREATING? Are women truly the scourge some would have us to believe? Is our existence only to emasculate men, take over men and their roles in the world, and create homosexuals?

    In a separate article the following information was given in regard to whether mothers create homosexual children: Scientists have studied twins to try and learn if being gay is biologically determined. Studies of identical and fraternal twins suggest that there is a genetic influence on sexual orientation. If being gay were strictly genetic, then in identical twins, there would be a 100% concordance rate for sexual orientation. But one study in 1995 found a 52% correlation for male identical twins and 22% for male fraternal twins. A study on females came up with similar results. If one identical twin was a lesbian, in 48% of cases, the other twin was also a lesbian. For fraternal twins, the concordance was 16%. (source, Simon LeVay) These studies show that people with the same genetic makeup (identical twins) are more likely to share sexual orientation than those with different genetic makeup (fraternal twins.) Genetics alone cannot cause sexual orientation, but they do play a part.

    There has always been a slippery slope to blame women for all the ills of the world beginning with passages in the Bible being contorted to fit a male driven agenda. It is for the blame game that women endure on every level in society I felt the overwhelming need to write my book, When Will Eve Be Forgiven? For women to live a healthy dignified life, the attitude towards women by men in power have to begin to uplift womanhood and all it encompasses and no longer view women as a threat or enemy. Hopefully my latest book, Manhood Interrupted an Answer For The Red Pill Man, available on amazon.com in March 2022, will help to do just that.

DON'T FORGET you can purchase all of my books on amazon.com