>>7527122Except in the case of the men you'd mentioned, you'd be referencing more how they created, controlled, and advanced their respective cultures. Women mostly interject themselves into already heightened circumstances.
We can use Mother Theresa as an example.
>But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. -1Timothy 2:12She could've started by obeying her religious principles (after-all, the unrepentant and triune God is the word made flesh). Instead she takes the primarily spiritual principles of her religion ("But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples." -Mark 4:34) and makes into an absolutely materialistic and secular principle (E.g., Jesus Christ as the bread of life sustains eternally, as opposed to an earthly bread) - which her Holy Book teaches will absolutely fail and have immensely dire consequences. How is the Catholic Church doing today? It is an entirely compromised and secular organization, spiritually dead ("For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?" -1Peter 4:17), it is a branch of a clandestine, objectively evil, and oppressive 'government.'
That's just one example. I like using the Christian examples, because their absolute archetypes concerning women seem to span exceptionally well. Women have been given exceptional and humble positions for their own good, they'd be better served staying there and not being the useful idiot of the Zionist and eternal Israelites.
Christianity (i.e., the Holy Bible (the KJV is the better among most translations)) is also the absolute anti-thesis to the damned Old Testament Jew.
Women don't know how badly they're currently being used. However, as history has so often shown, they're collective smart, independent, and powerful so I'm sure they'll get along just fine.
