Oh these women:
So irrational and
So crushingly practical!
Against them what are we men,
Apostles of rationalism, who
Hopelessly impractical,
Stumble over clouds?
* * * * *
An admired lady friend of mine, namely the widely renowned and inimitable Ellen Snortland, suggested I might wish to prove that I am a true Aquarian paradigmatist, by honoring women in history – or the history of women – while we are in the month of March.
I am well aware of the real importance of women throughout history even if only relatively few have made it into the history books written by men, but I had to admit that I was unaware of the nomination of the month of March as Women´s History Month in the US with numerous events and exhibitions to mark it.
It all began 101 years ago, in 1911, when the first International Women´s Day was celebrated on March 8th as the long fight by the “suffragettes” for women´s right to vote was entering its most decisive decade.
By that time women in New Zealand, Australia and Scandinavia had already been given voting rights, at least in local elections, and the male chauvinist bastions were beginning to crumble in the more powerful countries on both sides of the Atlantic. The general breakthrough in the developed Western world came after the end of World War I, even if France and Italy dragged their feet until after WWII, and Switzerland only allowed women to vote in 1971. The so called developing countries have been slowly coming on board since then. The latest one to my knowledge was Saudi Arabia, where women were given the right to vote only last year, in 2011.
The issue of equal rights for women is a prominent part of the now occurring shift to the Aquarian Paradigm. It is therefore one that definitely belongs on this blog. Actually the Aquarian issue of equal rights and equal value as human beings is much larger than that of equality between the genders. It includes racial equality, equality between people of different religions, of different nationalities, of different social classes and levels of education, of different abilities or discapacities, and of people with different sexual orientations. And these issues are by no means resolved and laid to rest. No, they are still very much on the agenda. Old habits die hard, as the saying goes. To achieve change of culturally and religiously ingrained habits and values takes several generations.
In my first book about the Paradigm Shift, published in Sweden in 1997 with the name WAKE UP SWEDEN -THE FUTURE IS HERE!, I dedicated a whole chapter to the issue of equality. I succeeded in enraging one of Sweden´s most emblematic feminist columnists. I had struck up a kind of friendship with her, which came to an abrupt end when she read my book.
My crime was to denounce the mainstream feminist movement for what it was: A cynical glorification of the male and materialistic values, betraying and selling out the true divine feminine. How can I say that? – Simply because all this brand of feminists do is want to be equals with men on men´s terms. In other words be like men! If they think that is bringing balance between the genders in society, they have totally misunderstood the whole issue. It´s NOT about women getting the same pay, positions and privileges as men in typically male professions in a materialistic society that only values money and power.
It´s about bringing balance between male and female, between the material and the mental-emotional, between the right and left brain. It´s about honoring and valuing all the traditional feminine tasks that are so crucially important in order for a society to stay sane and functional. I am talking about childbirth and childcare. I am talking about giving the children a safe and loving environment, where they can learn what they need to know and do in order to become harmonious and fulfilled human beings. Observe that I am not saying that only women can do that, even though I do believe that in most cases they are better suited for this task than most men. Equality between men and women does not mean that there are no differences between the sexes. Of course there are. And these differences should be honored and valued, not denied.
It all began with a natural, organic division of labor between men and women, caused by the fact that only women can undertake the central task in any society of giving birth to and breastfeeding children, for which Nature (or God if you prefer) has predisposed them. It meant that they were vulnerable and could not be counted on to go out and find food and do other tasks away from home, nor in case of need defend the home from invaders and enemies. Tasks that were delegated to the men and that were more readily translated into necessary material goods and assets.
The important aspect of this, that most people miss, is that feeding, teaching and caring for other people is not sufficiently valued in our society. We only value tasks that bring in material goods, and power to acquire material goods. And consequently occupations that typically do not bring in material goods or money but are necessary and make happy, are low on the value scale. Which makes people who perform these kinds of work less worth as members of society. And that applies to women who work at home or in caring or teaching professions. So the perceived low value of the kind of work they were doing was transferred to those who did the work, and since these traditionally were women, all women got the stigma of low monetary worth, unless they could prove otherwise.
The solution to the problem is not to have women fight with men for materially lucrative positions, nor is it enough to give women equal pay for equal work.
We need to radically revise our entire value system, so that all work that women have traditionally been doing – and often are best at for biological hormonal reasons – is respected and valued just as highly as work that men have traditionally been doing. When both women and men can do either type of work, and be appreciated and well paid for it, then true equality will have been restored.
That women have seldom entered history books is not really because they were seen as inferior to men. As argued before, it is because they did not DO the things that society valued. Which means that there were exceptions. A number of strong-willed women with motivation and skills have played important roles in history, but only when they replaced men in male occupations. After all we have had a number of queens, as far back as before Rome, and those queens were definitely not suffering from low regard, even if one of them, who became queen of all three Scandinavian countries in 1397 had to suffer the nickname in Swedish “King without trousers”. Another example, also from Scandinavia and the same century, is Saint Birgitta, a Swedish noblewomen of means who travelled to Rome to see the Pope and succeeded in founding an important religious order. She was promptly canonized after her death in Rome at age 70, and was named a patron saint of Europe. She travelled, not only to Rome, but as a pilgrim to Santiago de Compostela in Spain, and to Jerusalem, all the way from Sweden. Imagine that kind of travel around the middle of the 1300s!
Another historical woman that comes to mind was the war hero Joan of Arc who succeeded in being burnt at the stake by the British at age 19 and then become a national French saint. She came from a poor peasant family and, like Saint Birgitta, had religious visions to guide her.
Since this is only a blogpost, and not a book, and I have already taken up too much of your time, this will have to do for an apropos to Women´s History Month.
But before I let you go, I wonder if you knew that the “Powers-that-be”, usually identified as a group with its epicenter in the Rockefeller oil and banking clan, claim to have invented and promoted the whole idea of Women´s Liberation? It was revealed by the late Aaron Russo after becoming friends with a member of the Rockefeller family. He was told that the purpose was to get women to work outside their homes, so for one thing they would make money that will be spent on the market and taxed, and for another they would be unable to take care of their children, who would then have to be left in kindergartens and schools where they could be politically indoctrinated by teachers trained in institutions with curricula essentially designed by the Rockefeller Foundation. But they are also far less likely to have many children – or have children at all – which helps reduce the population, or at least slow its growth. All part of the New World Order. Do you think I am joking? Then think again! The source of the information, I am assured, is the very “horse´s mouth”.
Next week I intend to pay a tribute to the late Aquarian physicist and astronaut Dr. Brian O´Leary, a wonderful human being and a truly remarkable pioneer of the Aquarian Paradigm.
Till then, stay aware and keep safe from all governments!
Dr. Jens
