The Elevated Gynocentric Status of the Divine Feminine, the elevated Status of Women and, Female Supremacy and Feminist Misandry in the Mundane World In the following discourse and the subsequent hypothesis of my study, I shall refer to Jewish esoteric teachings dealing with the preeminent status of the divine female and will tie them to the dual Manichaean Cathar heresy in Christianity and specifically within the historical context of the troubadour society in the secular realm, mainly as the source primarily source where the roots of feminism can be traced back and located. Then, I will subsequently, will also establish the connection between them and the secular gynocentric society and will how all of them mirror the gynocentric matrix refuting the idea of an androcentric and phallocentric society. This, as I will show, will be followed by a discourse, that will reveal the historical link between those Gnostic undercurrents to the later social development routed in Christian Jewish esotericism especially that of Guillaume Postel and Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa. The two first male feminists, that gave rise to the proto-feminist era and the basis for modern feminist misandry and female gynocentric supremacy. It deals with concepts especially in the abstract realm of the divine and not only show the subversions of a role but will also expose the dynamics applied to hide the true nature of the society's gynocentric matrix behind the false or artificial façade of androcentric religions, here specifically the Abrahamic ones. Thus, it will also demonstrate its origin and its abiding in the mundane world of forms. In the ensuing discussions, “preeminent” refers to the higher female status in comparison to the men. To understand this divine female privilege, we will have to draw a discourse and understand not only how female preeminence is expressed through the names of God, a concept accepted and further developed by Agrippa, and gave rise to the mundane female privilege in the actual world, but also its appearances of the preeminent status which is to be found in the context of its abiding withing the concept of the Kabbalistic SEFIROT, which resembles the tree of life. While I will extensively explain the above dynamics through our discourse, here I will also concentrate and explain that this preeminent status is not expressed the same way in the entire spectrum of the Kabbalistic as well as Rabbinical thought but the privileged female status is persistent throughout all realms of religious as well as secular thought, theology, theogony, and philosophy. That includes religion as well as its Gnostic and esoteric branches but also all kind of secular paradigms, philosophies or worldviews. In terms of modern Judaism, it can be found in the Kabbalah, that influenced both, religious as well as secular strands of Judaism, in Jewish (Kabbalistic) theosophical or Hasidic thinking. Based upon the dual Christian heretic heritage of the Cathar Manichaean tradition, it establishes, though, a key approach in bolstering the privileged female status which is the result of an extraordinary work by most influential Kabbalists, Sabbateans, and Hasidic leaders. Based upon a methodological approach within the frame of comparative research and interdisciplinary study, which also incorporates sociology, in the subsequent discourse, I do claim that based on its divine preeminent status in the abstract realm of divinity, female mundane privilege springs and is born in the secular mundane world by the virtue of emanation. Likewise, we will also discuss, both male and female hypostasis, which will allow us to understand the subversions, the preeminent position of the Divine Feminine, as it was privileged in some key areas of the Kabbalah and especially in the context of the Cathar Manichean Gnostic dual heresy as well as Neoplatonist perceptions of cosmic descent and ascent. Regarding the inversion, better said the emanation, or even more precisely both of them, the clandestine nature of gynocentrism is revealed through the nature of the Kabbalistic discourse, especially in the Theosophical Kabbalah. This Kabbalistic strand of esoteric Judaism is dealing not only with explaining complex plans of the heavenly realms, that is in this context, also images not only of the increasingly complex hypostatic dynamics – what one can describe theosophy – but also not only many other aspects and processes taking place among them, yet, rather the understanding of inversions and emanation of various female and male energies and concepts from the abstract realm into the mundane world of forms where they are part of human interactions, which Moshe Idel calls theurgy. Subsequently, the Female refers not only to a certain entity, or many entities on the theosophical chart, and in certain fixed locations but it also, quite exceptionally, includes the female functions and interactions, both within the context of other divine power dynamics as well as those gynocentric power dynamics arising in the actual mundane world and regarding the male to female interaction, its power displays, variable, constants, and equations. Consequently. the depiction of the holy Feminine can be described as the sum of the interactions between the status, designations, names (as expressed through those of God) and symbols, not only in the abstract realms, not only in the mundane world but especially as is expressed through the subversion and emanation. The endless depictions of the Divine Feminine in Gnostic and esoteric literature are astonishing and help us to reconstruct the road map of inversion and emanation. Especially it is crucial as it depicts the truth of her preeminence over men and specifically her elevated status, namely, her depiction as superior to her husband in those esoteric texts and teachings. As researchers have pointed out, the word “Wisdom,” SOPHIA, and in Hebrew Chochma (חכמה), as it is found in Proverbs 8: 22–31, probably is revealing the impact of and a reaction to a Mesopotamian deity. Here, first of all, we have to understand how the concept of a monotheistic personal and later the more transcendental God has developed. As standing opposed to common wisdom, the perception of God was not created from scratch but adopted from the Pagan world and later accepted in all Abrahamic religions. As such, the Hebrews did not deny the divine elements, whether male or female, found in the different Pantheons in the Pagan world but understood them as different aspects of one deity whereas each specific aspect has its unique name. Those various aspects were incorporated in the one personal deity more in a way resembling human attributes while in the transcendental God it represented more female and male energetic forces. Subsequently, in monotheism Pagan deities were dethroned either to certain aspects of the Monotheistic God or to angels or vice vera demons and even physical occurrences. Once, being dethroned to an aspect of the monotheistic God representing a certain aspect of it, the Pagan deity has remained with its name and this is the reason and explanation of the different names of God in different passages of the Pentateuch and not the usual one given by the documentary hypothesis of Wellhausen. While the heaviest influence was from the Canaanite pantheon, many it comes from other parts of the Near East including Mesopotamia. This is the first stage of inversion and emanation. Then we have to understand the second dynamic and those specific elements from the Kabbalah. So first of all, we have to consider that mysticism within the monotheistic tradition arises through a certain lack that endangers the religion. It is a requirement to keep the religion alive and normally develops a few hundreds of years after the monotheistic religion was established. Why? It happens because normally in the polytheistic religions there was a strong personal connection to the gods as you can even visually see their statues. As the concept of God became more transcendental that direct an unmediated connection was lost! It has then normally developed into a crisis where there was a danger for the adherents to go back to polytheism and idolatry and this is what mysticism attempts to solve. Now, the Jewish mystical tradition of the Kabbalah attempts to tackle this problem by seeing the personal God (also described in the bible) only as of the emanation of the transcendental God which is called the EIN SOF meaning the un-endless and in a way that reminds a lot of the Hindu and Brahmanic religions. It depicts the process through something similar to the tree of life where God is described and seen in human terms through the process of emanation and where his head is part of the transcendental EIN SOF (translated as the "NO END) and the feet is in this material world. In this emanation most hypostases and specifically the important ones are female such as Binah, intelligence; Chochma, wisdom; Daat, understanding; while Keter, the crown, the transcendent God, has no gender, is Androgynous and especially of a symbolic nature. Another aspect speaks of the female body of "God". Historically, it is not only the SCHECHINAH, the Christian equivalent of mother Mary, but also the Knesset (not the Israeli parliament) but the highest religious entity that is considered female. The Shabbat, which I will also largely discuss later in detail, is considered female (queen and bride) and even the Torah (the Jewish Bible – the old testament) is considered female and a bride too. The holiest concepts are therefore almost all considered female and pure. In the Kabbalah, this is not only abstract but is understood in sexual terms, the same way as the divine feminine is considered the most inner and holy aspect in Islam and especially Sufism. And this will be also later discussed in detail). So, for example in the Shabbat ceremony according to the Kabbalah, it is not only understood as the reunion of the divine groom (God) and the Bride (Shabbat) but also the earthly husband and wife reunite in Shabbat (the idea of one flesh but in androgynous term also into one "soul" or mind). It is the legal duty of the husband to provide and sexually satisfy the wife on this day if she wishes so but it is not a female legal obligation. In Judaism, the woman is seen as inherently morally and emotionally pure and superior while the man is kind of evil and predator. According to this idea, the woman gives the husband sex just so that he does not become evil and predator which resembles the Christian Cathar – Manichaean dual heresy regarding the male nature and sexuality. The wife herself doesn't need it so much and if so, it is for a good reason while the man wants the sex for a bad one (which does not differ a lot from the Christian image of men and an attitude that is found a lot in even in modern society). Moreover, because the woman is seen as purer and superior, she is not required to do a lot of obligation a man is required. The marriage is a place to tame and re-educate the man, a kind of a camp to work on himself. This is the basic Misandrist idea of man in ALL religions, poly and monotheistic, namely him serving as PPP – provider, protector, procreation – which makes him a slave. It is also the most profound source of female gynocentrism, gynocentric supremacism, and feminist misandry. Now, let's go back to wisdom,” SOPHIA, and in Hebrew Chochma ((חכמה. The hints to this female hypostasis can be observed also in Philo of Alexandria’s model of the Logos and the central admiration of Wisdom in the Wisdom of Sirach as created at the beginning, in Hebrew מראש from the mouth of God (See Idel). In theosophical Kabbalah, for instance, one of the highest hypostases is the second SEFIRAH, is, indeed, called Chochma. The Hebrew word itself is also female. However, it does not remain only in the abstract realm but the hypostatic approach, the inversion, and emanation follow into the mundane realm of female praise and the human feminine nature. Here, we should first consider the concept of the SCHECHINAH, the Jewish equivalent of the Christian mother Mary. At this point, we should first bear in mind that in the Jewish mystic tradition, both the earlier but especially, the Kabbalist one that arose in Spain and France from the 12th and 13th centuries, the transcendental God is androgynous as I have already said. The emanation of God – the 10 Sephirot which resembles the tree of life– into the world is overwhelmingly female by its characteristics and attributes especially the most important aspects as we've already seen! Thus, as I will show, it is the male whose born and emanated from the female and not vice versa as the biblical myth in genesis narrates. As standing opposed to the possible idea that this might show or resemble a contradiction to the biblical text, as I will later show, it is, in fact, a complementary aspect of theogony and the origin of the human race rather than a contradictory one that reveals the different stages and helps keep the myth of an androcentric and phallocentric society while secretly hiding its gynocentric nature in a clandestine way as taboo. Moreover, God's real presence in the actual world is entirely female and is understood as SCHECHINA, which follows the ancient Pagan tradition of the EL, the Canaanite head of Pantheon whose power can be described as the source of potentiality but not the one that rules the world, a concept we are going to elaborate now especially as in regard and by the association to the Christian concept of Virgin Mary that was an important aspect in the troubadour poetry as well as European gynocentrism. Thus although God in the lower (the non-transcendental realm) is presented as a male figure he, first of all, is not in equal status with its transcendental androgynous nature and second, he bears a complete gynocentric and almost a feminist image of a male hence most of his attributes are female one as well as his entire presence in the world. This is the basic gynocentric manipulation, inversion and emanation, in religions and how men are sold this delusion. It is completely in sync with the way it is done in the very life itself. Moreover, mystical Judaism has much to say about the feminine face of God, called SHECHINAH. She grew out of the Hebrew Bible - Tanakh (which Christians call the Old Testament) and out of later Jewish experience and imagination, just like Mary, the Mother of God, grew out of the Bible and Christian experience and imagination. Many parallels can be drawn, some of whom we'll be discussing now. The Shekhina(h) (also spelled Shekina(h), Schechina(h), or Shechina(h)) (Biblical Hebrew: שכינה) is the English transliteration of a Hebrew word meaning "dwelling" or "settling" and denotes the dwelling or settling of the divine presence of the transcendental God as being the source of potentiality. The Shekhinah means in the most general way the female hypostatical personification of divine presence of the transcendental God and its "indwelling" or "presence" in the world. It is a concept that has intimately accompanied the Jewish people for some two thousand years, through all phases of its turbulent and tragic existence while coming to fruition in the extreme Gynocentric Kabbalistic teachings, influenced through Christian Gnostic Cathar Manichaean heresy and especially in a time dealing with persecution, existential danger and thus a need to protect the female for reasons of survival and putting women on a pedestal. While the Cathar motives greatly varied from those of the Kabbalists reflecting the Jewish reality in the diaspora, the combination of conflicting interests led to a cross-pollination culminating in a process of gynocentric apotheosis as a form of a new religion that is the Gynocentric Goddess worship of women known today as feminism. This term does not occur in the Bible and is from rabbinic literature. Shekhinah is derived from the Hebrew verb שכן. The Semitic root means "to settle, inhabit, or dwell". This abstract noun is not present in the Bible and is first encountered in the rabbinic literature. The root word is often used to refer to birds' nesting and nests. ("Every fowl dwell near its kind and man near his equal.") and can also mean "neighbor" ("If two Tobiahs appeared, one of whom was a neighbor and the other a scholar, the scholar is to be given precedence".) The word for the Tabernacle, Mishkan, is a derivative of the same root and is used in the sense of dwelling-place in the Bible, e.g. Psalms 132:5 ("till I find a place for the LORD, a dwelling for the Mighty One of Jacob.") and Numbers 24:5 ("How beautiful are your tents, Jacob, your dwelling places, Israel!" where the word for "your dwelling places" is mishkenotecha). Accordingly, in classic Jewish thought, the Shekhinah refers to a dwelling or settling in a special sense, a dwelling or settling of the divine presence, to the effect that, while in proximity to the Shekhinah, the connection to God is more readily perceivable. The concept is similar to that in the Gospel of Matthew 18:20, "Where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in their midst." Some Christian theologians have connected the concept of Shekhinah to the Greek term Parousia "presence" or "arrival," which is used in the New Testament in a similar way for "divine presence". Meaning in Judaism Being true to its gynocentric heritage, especially the troubadour Cathar one, since the second wave of Jewish feminism Shekhinah has become and was seen by feminists as a Goddess in her own right. However, originally while still depicting a gynocentric male image (of some sort of feminist God) Shekhinah represented the feminine attributes of the presence of God which came additionally to his attributes of emanation which are overwhelmingly female too. (both Shekhinah and most of the 10 Sephirot being feminine words in Hebrew, based especially on readings of the Talmud). Manifestation The Shekhinah is referred to as manifested in the Tabernacle and the Temple in Jerusalem throughout Rabbinic literature. It is also reported as being present in the acts of public prayer. In the Mishna the noun is used twice: once by Rabbi Hananiah ben Teradion (c. 135 CE): 'If two sit together and the words between them are of the Torah, then the Shekhinah is in their midst'; and Rabbi Halafta ben Dosa: 'If ten men sit together and occupy themselves with the Law, the Shekhinah rests among them". So too in the Talmud Sanhedrin 39a, we read: "Whenever ten are gathered for prayer, there the Shekhinah rests"; it also connotes righteous judgment ("when three sits as judges, the Shekhinah is with them." Talmud tractate Berachot 6a), and personal need ("The Shekhinah dwells over the head-side of the sick man's bed." Talmud tractate Shabbat 12b; "Wheresoever they were exiled, the Shekhinah went with them." Talmud tractate Megillah 29a). Hence, it is not the mere manifestation that is at play here but all of life, especially the formal power of men, is ruled by this great female cosmic energy. However, it does not stay just as cosmic presence as women are also the ones who formalize informal power and are the ones who are in charge of all domestic affairs. In the proverbs we read: Proverbs 31:10-31 King James Version (KJV) 10 Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies. 11 The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her so that he shall not need spoil. 12 She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life. 13 She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands. 14 She is like the merchants' ships; she bringeth her food from afar. 15 She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens. 16 She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard. 17 She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms. 18 She perceiveth that her merchandise is good: her candle goeth not out by night. 19 She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff. 20 She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy. 21 She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet. 22 She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple. 23 Her husband is known in the gates when he sitteth among the elders of the land. 24 She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant. 25 Strength and honor are her clothing, and she shall rejoice in time to come. 26 She openeth her mouth with wisdom, and in her tongue is the law of kindness. 27 She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness. 28 Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her. 29 Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all. 30 Favor is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the Lord, she shall be praised. 31 Give her of the fruit of her hands, and let her works praise her in the gates. As we can see, in particular, the Shekhinah is a holy fire that resides within the home of a married couple. It is not such fire but the energy that rules every aspect of it. The Shekhinah is the highest of six types of holy fire. When a married couple is worthy of this manifestation, all other types of fire are consumed by it. Jewish Sources: Usage! There is no occurrence of the word in pre-Rabbinic literature such as the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is only afterward in the Targums and rabbinic literature that the Hebrew term Shekhinah, or Aramaic equivalent Shekinta, is found, and then becomes extremely common.[need quotation to verify] McNamara considers that the absence might lead to the conclusion that the term only originated after the destruction of the temple in 70 CE, but notes 2 Maccabees 14:35 "a temple for your habitation", where the Greek text (naon tes skenoseos) suggests a possible parallel understanding, and where the Greek noun skenosis may stand for Aramaic shekinta: The Shekhinah is associated with the transformational spirit of God regarded as the source of prophecy: "After that, thou shalt come to the hill of God, where is the garrison of the Philistines; and it shall come to pass, when thou art come thither to the city, that thou shalt meet a band of prophets coming down from the high place with a psaltery, and a timbrel, and a pipe, and a harp, before them; and they will be prophesying. And the spirit of the LORD will come mightily upon thee, and thou shalt prophesy with them, and shalt be turned into another man". — 1 Samuel 10:5–6 The prophets made numerous references to visions of the presence of God, particularly in the context of the Tabernacle or Temple, with figures such as thrones or robes filling the Sanctuary, which have traditionally been attributed to the presence of the Shekhinah. Isaiah wrote, "I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne high and lifted, and his train filled the Temple." (Isaiah 6:1). Jeremiah implored "Do not dishonor the throne of your glory" (Jeremiah 14:21) and referred to "Thy throne of glory, on high from the beginning, Thy place of our sanctuary" (Jeremiah 17:12). The Book of Ezekiel speaks of "the glory of the God of Israel was there [in the Sanctuary], according to the vision that I saw in the plain." (Ezekiel 8:4) Targum In the Targum, the addition of the noun term Shekhinah paraphrases Hebrew verb phrases such as Exodus 34:9 "let the Lord go among us" (a verbal expression of presence) which Targum paraphrases with God's "shekhinah" (a noun form). In the post-temple era usage of the term, Shekhinah may provide a solution to the problem of God being omnipresent and thus not dwelling in any one place. Talmud The Talmud also says that "the Shekhinah rests on man neither through the gloom, nor through sloth, nor frivolity, nor levity, nor talk, nor idle chatter, but only through a matter of joy in connection with a precept, as it is said, but now bring me a minstrel. And it came to pass, when the minstrel played, that the hand of the Lord came upon him (II Kings 3:15)". (Tractate Shabbat 30b) Jewish prayers The 17th blessing of the daily Amidah prayer said in Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform services are "[Blessed are You, God,] who returns His Presence (Shekhinato) to Zion" (הַמַּחֲזִיר שְׁכִינָתוֹ לְצִיּוֹן) as can be seen in any Siddur (Jewish daily prayer book). Liberal Jewish prayer-book for Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur (Machzor Ruach Chadashah) contains a creative prayer based on Avinu Malkeinu, in which the feminine noun Shekhinah is used in the interests of gender neutrality. Sabbath Bride The theme of the Shekhinah as the Sabbath Bride recurs in the writings and songs of 16th century Kabbalist, Rabbi Isaac Luria. The "Asader Bishvachin" song, written in Aramaic by Luria (his name appears as an acrostic of each line) and sung at the evening meal of Shabbat is an example of this. The song appears in particular in many Siddurs in the section following Friday night prayers and some Shabbat songbooks:" "Let us invite the Shechinah with a newly-laid table and with a well-lit menorah that casts light on all heads". Three preceding days to the right, three succeeding days to the left, and amid them the Sabbath bride with adornments she goes, vessels and robes May the Shechinah become a crown through the six loaves on each side through the doubled-six may our table be bound with the profound Temple services" A paragraph in the Zohar starts: "One must prepare a comfortable seat with several cushions and embroidered covers, from all that is found in the house, like one who prepares a canopy for a bride. For the Shabbat are a queen and a bride. This is why the masters of the Mishna used to go out on the eve of Shabbat to receive her on the road and used to say: 'Come, O bride, come, O bride!' And one must sing and rejoice at the table in her honor ... one must receive the Lady with many lighted candles, many enjoyments, beautiful clothes, and a house embellished with many fine appointments ..." The tradition of the Shekhinah as the Shabbat Bride, the Shabbat Kallah, continues in Judaism to this very day. The concept of the Holy Spirit in Judaism The concept of Shekhinah is also associated with the concept of the Holy Spirit in Jewish tradition (Ruach ha-Kodesh), as can be seen in the Yiddish song: "Vel ich, sh'chine Tsu dir kummen "Will I, Shekhinah, to you come". Kabbalah and Jewish Mysticism: Shechinah in the light of the divine feminine in the historical context! Kabbalah associates the Shekhinah with the female. According to Gershom Scholem, "The introduction of this idea was one of the most important and lasting innovations of Kabbalah....no other elements of Kabbalah won such a degree of popular approval. The "feminine Jewish divine presence, the Shekhinah, distinguishes Kabbalistic literature from earlier Jewish literature." From behavioral philology, this is extremely important as it mirrors the general attitude of Mosarabic Spain as well as Cathar troubadour French culture putting women and femininity on a pedestal in the greater context of Eleanor of Aquitaine's gynocentrism. "In the imagery of the Kabbalah", continues Scholem, the shekhinah is the most overtly female Sefirah, the last of the ten sefirot, referred to imaginatively as 'the daughter of God' (although it is not exactly correct as the last Sefirah is Malckhut). The harmonious relationship between the female Shekhinah and the six sefirot which precede her causes the world itself to be sustained by the flow of divine energy", he writes. "She is like the moon reflecting the divine light into the world." As we have seen, Shekhinah, means 'indwelling in the world', God's immanence. A branch of Jewish mystics, the Kabbalists, took this immanence, Lady Wisdom, and the Holy Spirit, and crafted from them God the Mother, the bride of the Father. She is the totality of divine speech - the Word if you will. She is his bride in heaven, but also on earth, for she tied herself to the people, whom God chose to wed. As Christ in Christianity is God become human, so she too became human like us so that God might be close to his children and lead us back home. God the Mother loved her children so much, that she left God the Father in heaven and descended to be with her kids, following them into exile. This is very similar, just another version of the Cathar-Bogomil creation myth where the first human being coming to earth was a female and to spread love and to appease the (the male forces) of evil (who created the world). People saw her roaming in the communities of her exiled refugee children at night, wearing black and moaning loudly in pain. She cries over her children's suffering, over the sin of humanity which made her leave the embrace of her bridegroom, and over her separation from him. The image reminds us of a lot of the Mater Dolorosa, sorrowful mother Mary, crying not only for her son Jesus but for all her children, her heart pierced with seven sorrows. Shekhinah leaving her heavenly abode to be with her children in exile also is reminiscent of Jesus in Christianity "Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness;" (Philippians 2:6-7). According to Kabbalah, no one can come to God except through Shekhinah. She is to Kabbalists what Jesus is to Christians and what Mary is to her devotees. The Zohar, the major classic of Kabbalist literature, says: "Shekhinah is the opening to the Divine: 'One who enters must enter through this gate'."(*1) Sounds a lot like Jesus in John 14:6: "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, except by me." But Mary too is called the Gate of Heaven. The kabbalistic persona of Shekhinah developed over the centuries. Once she had taken on human form, she gradually came to represent all aspects of the feminine: the faithful wife, the nurturing mother, the sensual lover, sister the understanding and supporting sister and the bride, and the divine refugee. It is the depiction of the anatomy of female power that rules man's life from birth to earth: 1. Mother power 2. Bride Power 3. Wife power 4. Divine Cosmic Power This is the main difference between the Jewish God the Mother and the Christian Mother of God: Shekhinah has all attributes to her, the divine as well as the earthly, the sexual, and a-sexual aspects, that are lacking almost entirely in the Christian Virgin Mary thus she is more realistic. Since a wife and mother were seen as an earthly representative of Shekhinah, Kabbalists were encouraged to have "kosher sex" for instance. By uniting the feminine and the masculine purely, here on earth, they were also helping God the Father and Mother reunite in heaven. Pure sex was to be joyful, but chaste. It is interesting to mention that the Cathar Troubadour culture was more in synch with the Jewish thought on the matter while implementing this idea into Christianity by still withholding the sexual aspect away from the virgin marry but integrating and combining it with romantic and courtly love. It is the essence of female preeminence which was sold under the pretense and the myth of male power and patriarchy which never existed The Divine Feminine in Islam and Sufism Two Ways of Running by Rumi: "A certain man had a jealous wife and a very appealing maidservant. The wife was careful not to leave them alone, ever. For six years they were never left in a room together. But then, one day at the public bath the wife remembered she’d left her silver basin at home. “Please, go get the basin,” she told her maid. The girl jumped to the task knowing she would finally get to be alone with the master. She ran joyfully. She flew. Desire took them both so quickly they didn’t latch the door. With great speed, they joined. When bodies blend in copulation, spirits also merge. Meanwhile, the wife back at the bathhouse is washing her hair. “What have I done! I’ve set cotton wool on fire! I’ve put the ram in with the ewe!” She washed the clay soap off and ran, fixing her chador about her as she went. The maid ran for love. The wife ran out of jealousy and fear. There is a great difference. A mystic lover flies' moment to moment! The fearful ascetic drags along month to month. The length of a day for a lover maybe fifty thousand years! There’s no way to understand this with your mind. You must burst open! Love is a quality of God. Fear is an attribute of those who think they serve God, but they’re preoccupied with penis and vagina. Rule-keepers run on foot along the surface. Lovers move like lightning and wind. No contest. Theologians mumble, rumble-dumble, necessity and free will, while lover and beloved pull themselves into each other. The worried wife reaches the door and opens it. The maid is disheveled, flushed, unable to speak. The husband begins his five-times prayer. As though experimenting with clothes, he holds up some flaps and edges. She sees his testicles and penis so wet, semen still dribbling out, spurts of jism and vaginal juices drenching the thighs of the maid. The wife slaps him on the side of the head, “Is this the way a man prays, with his balls? Does your penis long for a union like this? Is that why her legs are so covered with this stuff?” These are good questions. People who repress desires often turn, suddenly, into hypocrites. It is clear that with the required adaptation and adjustments, we can first discover here, that not only that the troubadours’ themes and motivation are Arabic in origin and certainly evolving from the Sufi sect of Islam but also the divine feminine nature in Islam as I will explain how the Muslim esotericism. After all, both Ibn al - ‘Arabi (another poet of this genre) and Ibn Hazm traveled and lived on the Iberian Peninsula, just over the Pyrenees from France where the troubadours were writing and where William IX has learned the art and brought it back over to France. Rumi’s poetry appears to be a source of the themes of the forbidden and thwarted love as it is said that “he used the language of romance […] for many of his poems are songs of sexual love, infidelity, and drunkenness and often reveal a sense of ambiguity and the excitement of the forbidden common to much Sufi poetry”. Although as all Eastern courtly love, for example also seen in Modern Bollywood movies (early Sufism and Hinduism are tightly interconnected) where man and woman express co-mutual love and desire, this passage undoubtedly illustrates a passionate love that could not stand to be separated from the object of sexual desire – exactly in the same way as it appears in Cathar troubadour poetry. This is the sort of ambiguous, but vital, love that interested the Arabic poets as well as the troubadours. Additionally, Rumi writes that “life without [his beloved] is torture and agony to [him]”. Although this poem appears to be in worship to God, the language of desperation to be reunited and not separated from an object of desire is not only a link the other Arabic poets use but the troubadours as well. In Rumi's poetry, the beloved is the divine or God but at the same time the earthly love, the lover, and the beloved are simultaneously the expression of the divinity. Again, a clear resemblance with courtly love and especially the German version of the Minnesinger. On the other hand, and as standing opposed to the Cathars, Rumi deals here with the question of evil from a slightly different angle which resembles and reminds us more of the Buddhist Dharma via the root and connection to the Dharmic religions like Hinduism and especially the Indian sage and poet Kabir. The question is answered in two parts: first creation is necessarily differentiated into various qualities and attributes, including joy and sorrow and good and evil, because of the infinity of the Divine Nature, and because, in becoming "other than God," manifestation necessarily takes on particularized and opposing forms. Second even the cruelty of the world is a divine Mercy, for, the cruelty of time (fortune) and every affliction that exists are lighter than farness from God and forgetfulness of Him. Because these afflictions will pass, but that forgetfulness will not. Only he that brings his spirit to God awake and mindful of Him is possessed of felicity. In that sense and from God, all creation is performing but one task namely that of revealing the "Hidden Treasure"; thus, by the very fact that a being exists, whether it does good or evil, it is worshipping God. However, such statement and poems above infidelity, of course, do not mean that Sufis advocate it whereas they are a merely powerful metaphor that guides us in the spiritual path. Man is privileged among beings in that he has intelligence and free-will and therefore can disobey the commandments of God as well as obey them. Sufism, as well as the Dharma, advocates rather a path of awareness, of wisdom, of integrity, of courage, even if going against the stream, rather than the hypocrite path of doing this from a place of blindness, stupidity, fear, and spite stating that such a path does not necessarily lead to a better outcome. In Sufism "Man rides on the steed of 'We have honored (the sons of Adam)': the reins of free-will are in the hand of his intelligence". If he disobeys God's commands as set down by the prophets, he is revealing certain aspects of God but he is wronging himself, for although "all things concerning God are good and perfect, concerning us it is not so". "God most High wills both good and evil, but only approves the good". By doing what is good, man makes use of his divine gifts and derives benefit from them in that he increases his nearness to God. Other beings gain no benefit from following the laws of God, for they cannot do otherwise. Choice (free-will) is the salt of devotion; otherwise (there would be no merit): this celestial sphere revolves involuntarily, hence, its revolution has neither reward nor punishment. All created beings indeed are glorifiers of God, but that compulsory glorification is not wage-earning. While there is a big difference between Sufism as well as Buddhist Dharma which advocated the cessation of suffering through wisdom, awareness, integrity and many more as a way of freedom, the troubadours and Cathars based on their Christian heretical theology took it to the realm of subjugation to women which inflict more pain rather than freeing the man from it. Anyway, with a clear interest in forbidden and deceptive romance, Rumi certainly wrote about themes that interested the troubadours: an individual’s love for another and the repercussions that often result from love, such as deception, heartbreak, jealousy, and longing. The troubadours were also interested in all of the conflicts that arise when one individual loves another – the other person being of a different class or social standing or even promised to someone else. Moreover, the love stories that the Arabic poets and the troubadours were telling were ones of an individual’s struggle. It is the expression of one’s feelings that is the root of the genre that would develop into the modern romance genre through which the classical gynocentrism of Eleanor's of Aquitaine, the granddaughter of William IX, was spread all over Europe via the route of Italy, Austrian, Germany and from there to other countries. Especially Arabic (but also Jewish) love poets sparked the fire of this movement. Furthermore, Rumi wrote that a "Woman is the radiance of God; she is not your beloved. She is the Creator—you could say that she is not created." Not only that the woman resembles in Rumi's thought God himself, quite a heretical and dualist teaching in itself, but, as we have already seen in the above discussion, Rumi's concept of the lover and the beloved encapsulates also God himself. Thus, here we have another crucial link between the troubadours and Rumi namely the understanding that worshipping God means worshipping women and worshipping women means worshipping God. Hence, the above elaboration of the troubadour origins does not only suggest that courtly love was directly influenced by Islamic (as well as Jewish) mysticism specifically the Sufi tradition and in this context particularly that of Rumi but that it calls the attention to an unexpected and little known fact of an immense significance in Islam: at the center of Islam stands the Sacred Feminine which makes it no less a gynocentric tradition than any other culture existing from the beginning of human history. Sufism, the path that gave birth to Rumi, treasures the esoteric secret of womanhood and in that it resembles with the troubadours that albeit sometimes different interpretations and applications followed the same gynocentric path and quest in ending their suffering through the assimilation in the divine feminine and fact subjugation both to its cosmic energy as well as its earthly form of the human female. So, even though Sufism is the esoteric aspect of a seemingly and superstitiously patriarchal religion it is only through later politically counter - reactionary response to external cultural influence, although still in the formation stage of the Islamic religion, that through social manipulation of the newly born religion Islam has become a mixture a gynocentric and a patriarchal system that oppresses women. Muslims pray five times a day. In their prayer the city of Makkah as do Jews to Jerusalem. Inside every Mosque is a niche, again in the same way as the Jews have the Torah shrine. This niche is called in Arabic Mihrab. It consists of a vertical rectangle curved at the top that points toward the direction of Makkah. The Sufis understand the Mihrab as the visual symbol of an abstract concept namely the transcendent representation of the vagina of the female aspect of the divine. In Sufism, the woman is the ultimate secret as she is also the soul. Toshihiko Izutsu writes, 'The wife of Adam was feminine, but the first soul from which Adam was born was also feminine.' As we will immediately see it resembles a lot with some aspects of the Cathar heresy too that has its roots in the Bogomil heresy of the Balkan that on their part were not only influenced by old Eastern Gnosticism but later also unsurprisingly converted to Islam. The above poem of Rumi must be also understood in this way namely as the earliest gynocentric form of Arabic (as well as Jewish) courtly love that at this stage was more balanced and less driven by European misandry and proto-feminism. Both of the women in the above poem, the jealous wife as well as the maidservant, are not only inherent good since the Sufi (as well as Buddhist and partly Jewish) understanding of good and evil sees both sides of the coin as the same forms of the divine but in its gynocentric application they are all here not only to teach the man but, in that sense, they excuse the abuse of men whether a man chooses the one or the other action. Those concepts are also presented in Judaism which teaches that the woman is inherently good as she comes to help the man to progress in his spiritual path thus abuse is equivalent to teaching or guiding man as well as also in the theological understanding of Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa who shares it with Judaism too and see the divine and sacred feminine in a seemingly almost the same way as the Sufis especially both the Jewish application of the androgynous transcendental divine as well as the concept of the pre-eminence of women rooted in the Jewish Kabbalistic concept of God's name (that also sees women as being inherently superior to men). Even more, it can be especially found in the Cathars tradition that likewise understands the creation myth as a woman being the first to be sent to earth to soothe the forces of evil and thus bring solace to all living beings through her love. Thus, once again despite the differences between the two traditions the connection and relationship between Rumi's Sufism and the Cathar troubadours are not only to be found in the same quest and interest but also many deep and profound aspects of the overlapping and mutually shared gynocentric theology. Moreover, the divine Feminine has always been present in Islam. This may be surprising to many people who falsely think of Islam as a pure patriarchal religion versus a culture that in the modern world is socially a joint venture of gynocentrism and patriarchal power structures that oppress women. Possibly, the cause for this misapprehension is the precise nature of the sacred feminine in Islam. The Sacred Feminine in Islam displays itself metaphysically as the inner manifestation of the religion. Her centrality demonstrates her necessary and life-giving role in Islam. In Islam, there is not the same condemnation of the body as is found in many of the major Christian sects. Exactly as it is in the Jewish and Buddhist tradition and as standing to various teaching in Christianity, the body is not an obstacle in Islam, but rather it is a means to attain enlightenment. Sexual pleasure is not shunned in Islam but rather incorporated into daily life. It is the same as the tantric paths in the Dharmic religions and spiritual paths. To begin with, the body itself is given great significance in Islam when one takes into account the bodily postures that are a necessary and essential part of the compulsory five times a day prayer or the dance of the singing Darwish – a concept that naturally resembles with the itinerary troubadours and Jewish BADHANIM. During salat (Islamic prayers) the body is metamorphosed into a manifestation of the sacred. These bodily postures are also very similar to the bodily postures one observes in Hindu Hatha Yoga, which is a branch of Tantric Yoga. Islam's unitary, holistic view of the body and spirit is evident in the alchemical saying of the Shi'ite Imams, 'arwahuna ajsaduna wa- ajsaduna arwahuna' (our spirits are our bodies and our bodies are our spirits). One of the primary goals of the Sufi is to reawaken the body to an awareness of it being an expression of the divine. The body is not sinful (as in the Roman Catholic Church's conception of Original Sin) in Islam, rather the body is the seat of the highest reality created by God in the whole universe. To understand the Divine Feminine in Sufism, it is helpful to understand a few basics concepts of Tantra, Buddhism, Yoga as well as Hinduism, and Judaism. Yet, one thing is clear that the main and direct source that gave rise and heavily influence the Troubadours as well as the courtly love phenomenon and later helped in establishing feminism and misandry in Europe alongside with the Judeo-Christian tradition that was the direct source that gave birth to feminism and misandry was Sufism and here especially the school of Rumi. Back to the Jewish sources, we can then say that different depictions of the celestial Feminine thus arose from various sources, especially as transmigration from the Pagan into the Monotheistic world, which was subsequently adopted, adapted, misunderstood, and combined in different ways in the various schools of theosophical Kabbalah. In the next paragraphs, I will tie all the aspects, discussed above and those in the wider context to draw a more detailed and comprehensive picture from which we will continue to discuss the complete anatomy of this gynocentric matrix. Here, we will see that the emerging Christian as well as Jewish esoteric, mystic, and Gnostic corpora of wisdom have developed and emerged from the far earlier culture within the frame of Pagan religions. Thus, we will see that gynocentrism isn't inherently an only – Monotheistic phenomenon but rather an underlying condition 0f all human cultures, societies, and traditions this happened long before the emergence of Kabbalah, Christian esotericism as well as the Gnostic teachings and the Christian dual heresies. In essence, a male and a female couple constituting angels of gigantic size are known from late antiquity. As I said, it is well exhibited, reflected and mirrored through the sexual aspects of the Shekhinah, Knesset Yisra’el, or the heavenly Jerusalem, but they are existing much earlier than monotheistic tradition and can be traced at least to the Turko – Slavic heritage and even before. Here, in the legends and the folklore of the Russian people that grew out of the common and shared Slavic mythologies, there is a feminine mythical demonic figure that is used a lot as a metaphor whose nature we will explain immediately. The real meaning of this metaphor is fundamentally different from what we are superficially tempted to think and supposed to associate with. This personality or character is called Baba Yaga. She is depicted as a supernatural being (or one of a trio of sisters of the same name in a very similar way that reminds us and resembles the female Canaanite Goddess trio of Ashera, Ashtoreth and Anat) who also appears as a deformed and/or ferocious-looking woman. Baba Yaga is described as a demonic witch who cooks people and babies. She flies around in a mortar, wields a pestle, and dwells deep in the forest in a hut usually described as standing on chicken legs and is in the thicket of a dense forest. Described as a terrifying creature she normally flies in the middle of the night sometimes on her broom too. The fence or gates of her hut are filled with human skulls and there is always a place for an additional one that she might put there. Her name, "Baba" means in most Slavic languages "grandmother" or an "old woman". Babki (many of Baba) in Russian slang can be synonymous with the term "Weiber" in German and Yiddish (a language that is a combination of German and Hebrew and was used by German Jews). This is something that translates and is equal to the English term Womenfolk. This is also the meaning of Baba in Russian for a single woman and not only in the plural. Its associated name "Yaga" is sometimes translated as the small form of "Jadwiga", which is the Slavic version of the German name "Hedwig". This is an important factor or detail because in the Slavic languages it has a central meaning or role as an etymological and semantic derivative both from Greek and Turkish Slavic heritage. Some etymologists think that there is a more direct Slavic source for the name "Yaga" which is the proto-Slavic word ęgа, who's meaning also seems to be related to Greek and Slavic heritage However, one of these metaphorical stories has a very powerful narrative and speaks of people who were on a spiritual path and/or some kind of a path of self-inquiry and who came to the forest where she lived. The story then goes to describe the meeting and recalls her asking the first man who came to her "are you coming on your own (initiative)?" This spiritual seeker answers the question and says, "no, my father sent me." She immediately takes and throws him into the pot. Then another spiritual seeker comes in. She asks him again "are you coming on your own (initiative)?" This time, the second man answers her question and says, yes. She takes and throws him into the pot too. And the third guy replies, "look, partly I'm here because of others, partly because of me, partly I do not even know why, partly because of you, partly because of the forest and partly because I do not remember why". "And then finally Baba Yaga tells him" You'll be fine" and invites him into her hut. This Russian - Slavic folktale, as we shall see immediately, has not only an important lesson but also reflects many of the principles of which is, naturally, the domain of the Slavic culture, but also presented as proven and established analogies in other mythologies such as the Semitic Canaanites as well as the domain of universal truth, the meaning of this story is that to free themselves from suffering or some kind of existential difficulty as a part of the seeker's spiritual path one needs a lot of courage to stand up to the forces of vulnerability, doubt, fear, loss of our center of being, including clinging to ideas and thoughts, not just material things while Baba Yaga is the object of this archetype of fear. This is also the way to be freed from suffering: courage, integrity, honesty, security, and so on are crucial and the most important ingredient of the path. Escape will not help here. Only if you put your head in the lion's mouth and are honest with yourself only then will you get over your fears and free yourself However, in contrast to this story, Baba Yaga sometimes appears while exhibiting an antagonistic role and sometimes as we have seen in this example as a source of guidance, wisdom, initiation, and the cessation of suffering. In this sense, and in a non-dual way, it serves not only as an archetype of wisdom including the idea or concept of being an object of the archetype of fear but also in the role of courage and integrity that frees us from suffering as well as also simultaneously incorporating and being the prototype of those dark forces of our psyche that create the same suffering. Based on a deep and intimate knowledge of this human psyche and nature, this concept reflected a very scientific formation within the framework of pagan thought in which the nucleus or kernel of wisdom needed for us to be freed from suffering is to be found within suffering itself (in the same way as in a scientific theory the core of refutation must be included or embedded in the theory itself for it to become scientific). Baba Yaga symbolizes perhaps the difficult (and frightening) way and in another sense the necessary instrument, but also simultaneously the ideal and the practical outcome of the cessation of suffering. Why and how is its origin gynocentric we will understand immediately, but first we have to note that in this evolutionary, biological reality the female is the originating source of the male, defines it, gives it validity, and controls it as I will explain immediately. As I have explained in one of my previous publications and studies, it is the source of all and everything. And yet, in fact, and against the older pagan notion that still created a more balanced unity within the framework of biological evolutionary Gynocentrism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam that became more gynocentric religions than the preceding ones, this prototype was exaggerated and converted, for example in Judaism and Christianity, to the archetype of the Shechina (the indwelling creative force of the abstract divine element that creates and sustains life or world/reality) and the Virgin Mary, which creates as I said the world, dominates reality and in the end revives everything Either way, when Baba Yaga serves as a source of guidance and wisdom, it helps people as I said in their self - inquiry (mostly spiritual/mental or in some similar context). For the most part, searching for her help is described as a dangerous endeavor. Special emphasis is placed upon the need for proper preparation for a meeting with her and a pure soul such as courage, integrity, honesty, confidence and so on, alongside with the obligation to maintain a basic etiquette. It shows that despite her "demonic" depiction and reputation she wields a lot of honor and respect, a seemingly superficial contradiction that we will solve immediately. In my other articles, as well as in this article itself, I also discussed the fact that pagan mythologies and folktales were often based on a very deep understanding of the human psyche and were used metaphorically as a type or in a similar way as also Jung's archetypes were understood in psychology. When we remove the layer and the theological pagan dimension itself, which in many cases is indeed problematic, the message of wisdom and the moral narrative is very powerful. Moreover, some researchers think that Baba Yaga was originally a Goddess and here we connect to the same layers in mythologies and religions that reflect the Gynocentric concepts of society mirrored through popular folklore and within the dimension of folktales of the different cultures that I have described above. For example, Sergei Rjabchikov (Рябчиков) believes that Baba Yaga should be identified with and represents the Goddess Tabiti, the Mother Goddess of the Scythians and who was later dethroned during the transition from Polytheism to Monotheism, exactly the process that I have described with the frame of the creation/inception of the monotheistic God and that happened to his female counterpart, actually pretty much in the same way that happened to him and many male Gods who were dethroned; lost their position and became either demons, physical phenomena or certain aspects of the one- and - only Monotheistic deity as will be proven by me later through concrete examples. Not only this resemble respectively, as I already explained, with the Jewish as well as the Christian concepts of the Mother Goddess and the mother of God that is here clearly evident but also the connection between the mother Goddess and wisdom is very strong, clear, and important. For example, wisdom (Chochma), intelligence (Bina), and understanding (Daat) in Judaism and Kabbalah are all female concepts. The specific idea of a female circling a man who is dependent on her and that was adopted by Christian Kabbalists like Guillaume Postel who were also proto feminists is a very essential and known element. Thus, wisdom is a feminine concept/reality that defines the masculine and it reflects the principles of biological and evolutionary Gynocentrism 0:1 Moreover, one can point to the similarity between a "hut built on chicken's legs" and the shape of a structure that was common among hunter-gatherer societies in Siberia and who were also known to be shamans. Historically, however, this house was meant to protect food and equipment from animals during periods of long absence: a wooden cabin with no windows and doors, standing on scaffolding made of torn logs of trees from the perimeter of the building, stretching for about ten feet. This is used in legends as a basis for describing the house on the legs of a chicken and it also has a solid empirical basis as a tool for the overall metaphor. Also, a similar but smaller structure served the people of Siberia as a dwelling place for their idol worshipers. Given the Gynocentric structure of human society, especially the shaman of the Siberian people, an archetypal picture of a carved bone figurine wrapped in ragged clothes and placed in a small hut on the top of a stumped stanchion corresponds to Baba Yaga's description of her entire body, her legs in one and another corner, and her nose grows to the ceiling. On the overall level, it also corresponds to the idea of searching for her and her wisdom as a form of initiation and instruction since the Shaman men were sons of the same female Shamans who guided and educated them in the mysteries of esotericism. This is also the primary basis for the idea of formal and informal power distribution between women and men. This model in which men took upon themselves more official roles including religion and women maintained informal power has begun here as an anthropological basis that can be seen as reflected in these legends and as for the dynamics explained by Susan Carroll Rogers in her research in terms of power distribution between the genders within the traditional peasant societies. This dynamic as I have explained by extending her research based on deeper dynamics in examining the differences between ultimate abstract reality and the actual relative one on which anthropological development is based is universally valid through all the spectrum of human society including the modern one Anyway, in this context, it is also very important to mentions that the Siberian shamans were the first ones to develop a kind of spirituality that eventually became an established religion (Brahmanism, Hinduism and from there over the fertile crescent to the Canaanites and finally the Monotheistic traditions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. However, even in the pre – institutionalized era of religions of the Shaman cultures, those were women who were the first Shamans during this primordial religious development and not men. In my research on the migration of early hominids, I showed that the roots of both the female shamanism as well as the gynocentric nature of society as the source of female shamanism and its derivative of cultural as well as religious shamanic spirituality may go back more than 5 million years and be linked with our ancestors’ upright posture. This is the link where the gynocentric culture of non-human primates shifts into the human one! According to Ian Tattersal (1999), one of the leaders in the study of human evolution and curator at the Museum of Natural History in New York City, once our hominid ancestors stood upright there would be a need for midwives! This female need for midwives encapsulated the dynamic that gave rise to the evolutionary need of society not only to assist females by birth but also alleviate their suffering in a way that by definition would in a later dynamic lead to the accumulation of traditional alternative, spiritual as well as medical and esoteric knowledge in the hands of women via the root of Shamanism, spirituality, and religion. Here we should bear in mind that it is rare for women to give birth alone and most cultures typically had midwives. Moreover, almost entirely most births in human history occur close enough to the village so that others can hear the baby’s first cries. This signals to the woman’s female relatives and friends that the child has been born and that the mother may welcome assistance in delivering the afterbirth, cutting the umbilical cord, and wiping the baby clean. Perhaps carrying the baby for her, other women will accompany her back to the village. Only the most experienced and determined woman insists on being alone during these last stages Humans are almost unique in our use of midwives. Most animals give birth alone, though midwives have been observed among elephants, dolphins, and bats. The human need for midwives undoubtedly increased, as the size of newborns' heads increased. In our evolution humans have struck a delicate balance with our large heads: Our big brains make for difficult births. The trend in the human line (hominids) has been for our babies to be born less mature so a great deal of the brain growth happens after a baby is born. As a result of this evolutionary strategy, human babies are born immature and need care for a longer period compared to other animals. This puts a range of demands on social structure and nursing mothers in particular. It also must have increased the demands on and for midwives. Midwives have the experience of catching babies and usually at some points in their lives have also been pregnant and given birth. This double experience, over millions of years, gave midwives a vast body of knowledge about pregnancy, birth, and child-rearing. This body of knowledge also would have included what to do if something were to go wrong or if someone became sick or hurt. The importance of midwifery as a response to human evolution seems to me to be the logical root of female shamanism while the above description gives us the frame of biological evolutionary gynocentrism 0:1 Hence, as a derivative of biological and evolutionary reality not only a lot of alternative and esoteric spiritual wisdom was acquired as part of the effort to ease the woman's suffering but its origin was female and accumulated in the hands of women. Therefore, this is not only the basis for biological evolutionary Gynocentrism, which is reflected in religion and spirituality but also the basis of all these mystical teachings, since spirituality and alternative knowledge in nature are those of feminine roots. This phenomenon could be foreseen throughout history, for example, and especially in the Bogomil and Cathar culture, which provided the basis for the troubadours and then for feminism and Misandry. However, this in itself does not make them by definition false or wrong especially in their original more balanced form but rejects the claim that religions and societies are patriarchal and such that have excluded and oppressed women. Anyway, acknowledging this reality, we again should bear in mind that as aforesaid Baba Yaga was identified with the goddess Tabiti in the early Gynocentric societies and in the same way both in the Semitic one (through the unification with the respective Semitic Goddesses of Ashera, Ashtoreth and Anat) as well as the Shamanic societies. She was not the one who held formal power, but rather because she represents and embodies the female qualities of the androgynous Ein Sof (infinity) as defined in Kabbalah or the ultimate abstract aspect of absolute reality that creates and dominates the world through the informal dimension which, as we have said, is the source of formal authority and that also approves and supervises it, without whom the authority cannot be exercised, she was ruling through the dimension of informal power. As we shall see, Tabiti is also the equivalent of the Jewish Shekhina and the Christian Virgin Mary, the mother goddess, and mother of God, as well as the Asherah, Ashtoreth and Anat from the Canaanite Semitic mythologies, the direct concept from which the ideas of the Shekhina were nurtured in Judaism and Virgin Mary in Christianity both of whom themselves were descendants of Tabiti Moreover, according to the ancient Mongolian and Turkish religions, as described by Raphael Berezinov, the formal power hierarchy begins with Tangari and Omaye, which are the Greek counterparts of Uranus and Gaia. At the same time, Tabiti has ranked above and is preeminent to them. This dynamic as I have described it based on the Ugaritic mythology is also found in the heavenly hierarchy of the Canaanite pantheon. While El is the head of the Pantheon, his "reign" is more of a symbolic nature while Ashera with her two daughters, Ashtoreth and Anat, are the actual rulers with Anat's brother Baal. Anat not only helps her brother fight against his enemies, the mythical snake, whale, and the crocodile. But she also helps her brother resurrect after being killed by his rivals, taking revenge, defeating them, bathing in their blood, putting their skulls on her waist (which reminds us of the skulls and the ferocious nature of Baba Yaga) and returning Baal to his throne. It is the Semitic way of the Canaanites to explain the same phenomenon of formal authority as being expressed, approved through the female source, depends on it, defined by it and needs its help in being exercised over the masses whereas it was slightly done indifferently way than in the Slavic version. Without the informal feminine, the formal male authority has no validity and no practicality Although Greek mythology also presents the same dynamic as to the origin of the source of the masculine and male authority as well as specifically the distribution of formal and informal power, Tabiti was transformed by the Greeks into a household goddess called Vestia or Hestia. This is the name Hedwig which we already know from the German culture from which the name Yaga comes in Slavic languages and as the derivative of Jadwiga, probably also in the Proto Slavic form of the name ega. Anyway, I want now to discuss the process of dethroning pagan gods, sometimes even to the level of a physical phenomenon or a demon, which is familiar to us as I said above not only with the God's concept inception but as we can see here also from the transition between mythological paganism and monotheistic concepts as well. Here are a few examples from Cassuto's monumental works in his exegesis and commentary on Genesis: The Transformation of the Goddess Tiamat in the concept of physical depth Cassuto writes: "In the Greek summary of the myth by the Babylonian priest Berossus, it is clearly stated that the god Bel, that is, Marduk, sliced the body of Thamte (Tiamat, Tâmtu) into two, and of the one half he formed the earth and of the other half the heavens. With the parallel traditions in the Canaanite and the ancient Israelite poetry, it will suffice to note the opposition of the Torah (Pentateuch) to the entire mythological account. It is true that in the Pentateuch, too, reference is made to the division of the primeval world-ocean into two halves, situated one above the other, but the entire mythological picture is completely erased. Here we have neither war nor weapons; a body is not carved up, nor are its segments used for construction; a simple process of physical unfoldment takes the place of the mythical train of events described in the pagan legends" (Thus in the Monotheistic traditions the Goddess Tiamat has become a physical phenomenon) He further writes: The word tehom, rendered ‘deep’, undoubtedly belonged to the poetic tradition of antiquity, and consequently it is used without the definite article, which is rarely found in Biblical verse and is entirely wanting in Canaanite poetry. Linguistically, the word corresponds precisely to the Arabic word Tihamat, which denotes the low-lying Arabian littoral (the Arabic tahmun generally signifies, ‘land sloping towards the sea [see G. W. Freytag, Lexicon Arabico-Latinum, s.v.]), and to the Akkadian word Tiamat, the name of the goddess of the primeval World-Ocean, who had existed from time immemorial and was the mighty foe of the Creative God. Although the equivalent noun in Hebrew lacks the feminine termination -t, it is nevertheless treated as a feminine substantive. In the Pentateuch, tehom denotes simply the primeval World-Ocean—a purely physical concept. It is matter and has no personality or autonomy; it had not existed from time immemorial but was created by the will of God, and was ready to receive whatever form its Maker would be pleased to fashion for it The transformation of the male deity Ed into the physical phenomenon of groundwater Here Cassuto writes: "The best explanation is the one based on the Mesopotamian name Id, which is the designation of the guardian deity of the waters of the deep (see Albright, JBL, lviii , pp. 102–103). Accordingly, the word ’edh refers here to the waters of the deep generally and to all the springs issuing therefrom. This accords with the statement below (v. 10): A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, that is, the garden was watered by a river emanating from a spring, and not by rain. It is also in keeping with the general tenor of the section: at first, the ground did not absorb water from above (Bereshith Rabba xiii 9–10, Theodor’s edition, pp. 118–119, and parallel passages), in other words, its fructification was not dependent on rain, which sometimes comes down in due time and sometimes is withheld, but it drew water from below, that is, it was constantly irrigated by the waters of the deep. This blissful state of affairs prevailing in the garden of Eden and the similar circumstances obtaining in Egypt served as classic examples of a land blessed with fertility: like the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt (xiii 10). Man would have continued to enjoy these conditions had he remained free from sin, but when he transgressed the Lord punished him by decreeing that the soil should obtain its moisture from above, so that He might require man according to his deeds, giving him rain in its season if he was worthy and withholding it if he was unworthy The integration and unification of different and entirely separate deities as various aspects and characteristics of the one and only Monotheistic God Here Cassuto writes the following on the integration and unification of the Canaanite God Baal who was dethroned and unified with the Monotheistic God as some specific characteristics and aspects of him: "From the Ugaritic writings we know that the Canaanites used to tell of the god Baal that he built for himself a palace in the sky and opened therein windows or lattices (the very verb pth [‘opened’] and the nouns hln [ = Hebrew hallon, ‘window’] and ’urbt [= Hebrew ’arubba, ‘lattice’] are found in Tablet II AB, col vii, lines 17f.), and through these windows Baal caused his thunders to be heard. And since the Canaanites attributed to Baal also the sending down of rain from heaven, it is probable, although there is no definite reference to it in the texts known to us at present, that they also conceived this action to take place through the windows, and the term the windows of heaven was used in their language to denote the source of rain. One should not be surprised at the fact that this expression was inherited by the Hebrew tongue. The different forces and phenomena of nature and the fundamental principles of life, which the pagan people embodied in the form of entirely separate deities, were integrated and united, in the monotheistic consciousness of the Israelites, as the various acts of the One and Only God; and when the ancestors of Israel accepted the tongue and phraseology of the Canaanites, it was but natural that they should also take over, as part of the vocabulary and idioms of the Canaanite language, the Divine designations and other terms that signify these acts or are connected with them In this way, the Israelites appropriated two titles of the God of Melchizedek, God Most High and Maker of heaven and earth (see Part I, pp. 200f.); similarly the Israelites employed the Divine appellation rokhebh ba’ărabhoth [‘who rides upon the clouds’], which the Canaanites applied to Baal (rkb ’rpt); and so, too, the Israelites accepted the use, if only as metaphorical expressions, of such idioms as "the opening of the windows of heaven’. We find the phrase, in the undoubted sense of sending down rain, in Mal. iii 10: if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you an overflowing blessing. In ii Kings vii it is recorded that one of the king’s captains did not believe in the words of the prophet who announced in the Lord’s name: Tomorrow about this time a measure of fine meal shall be sold for a shekel, and two measures of barley for a shekel, at the gate of Samaria, and in mockery of these good tidings he said (v. 2; compare v. 19): If the Lord Himself shall make windows in heaven, could this thing be? as though to say: Is it possible to believe that the Lord would open windows in heaven and send down therefrom not rain, as usual, but fine flour and barley? On Isa. xxiv 18: For the windows on high are opened, see below. The substantive hallon [‘window’], which is used in Ugaritic as the equivalent of ’urbt [‘lattice’], is likewise found in the Hebrew linguistic tradition as a synonym for ’ărubboth haššamayim [‘the windows of the heavens], from which the waters of the Deluge came down. Although it does not occur in the Bible—possibly, this is accidental—it is found in rabbinic literature. In Bereshith Rabba xxxi 12 we are told of the giants (see the variant readings in Theodor’s edition, p. 285): ‘They set down their feet and closed up the deep, and they placed their hands on the windows [ hallonoth] and closed them up’, etc. This word preserves traces of the ancient tradition, which survived among the Israelites through the generations Thus, the various Pagan Gods became either physical phenomena or certain aspects or attributes of the one Monotheistic God where either a male or female Pagan deity could have become a physical phenomenon such as an abyss, groundwater or steam or an attribute of the one Monotheistic God as well as being dethroned to demons. This phenomenon, then naturally, has nothing to do with the oppression of women, but rather it is reflecting the process and transition of monotheism from pagan religions. The Goddess Tabetti underwent such a similar transformation as an in-between link still within the Pagan mythology, similar to that of many male and female Canaanite gods and deities whereas the later Hebrews adopted this concept and dynamic from the preceding polytheistic traditions. Yet, while the male gods underwent in long term a continuation of demonization, some of the female goddesses were not only placed on the pedestal as the object of admiration and adoration in the ordinary culture but their status on the ultimate level remained superior to the male even when they were dethroned to the realm of demons. Even then they maintained the good, the positive and the beneficial element, as in the case of Baba Yaga The bottom line in this context is that from the course of these events we also learn that all the folktales of Baba Yaga correspond to historical, theological, anthropological, social as well as cultural developments of this kind. Beyond the above, it may be added that Baba Yaga's name is a development of this sort too, as well as a description of her home in the context of her being a witch. Her story also depicts the reality where a deity, female or male was dethroned to the level of demons, yet in this case being relocated to a specific aspect of the physical world namely her home, hut. Of particular importance in this context is the etymology and semantics of the name 'baba" itself which as we shall see translates in Russian as a grandmother or an old woman and whose origin is of Turkish –Slavic heritage. In the Turkish languages, the name Tabiti originates in the root of Ebi or Ebba, which is an expanded manner that means the superior mother. In terms of semantic clusters, it also means grandmother and as a derivative midwife and a dear woman. Semantically and etymologically, this is the reflection of the gynocentric evolutionary biological reality in which the first female hominid began to walk on two and needed to be given help by midwives during birth as I explained at the beginning of our exegesis here. Through a long and a stepwise graduate process, it transformed and migrated into the concepts of biblical Eve and later to the other concepts such as the Shekhina and Virgin Mary as I described the beginning of the discourse here. Even the biblical name Eve still maintains and echoes its semantic and etymological origin of Ebe (in Hebrew Hava). How semantics and etymology as well as the other concepts and dynamics as explained through the Biblical examples above passed through the various stations and incarnations is through the Sumerian, Akkadian, and Aramaic cultures of Mesopotamia and from there through the Canaanites to the Bible. By the way, Tabiti came also from the Turkish root of Tapp and Tabino, which means worship. The two meanings do not contradict one another; they match each other in terms of the Gynocentric message of putting women's needs and desires first These models of formal and informal power distribution as a part of evolutionary biological Gynocentrism, as well as the other dynamics described in this article, were observed in all of the ancient societies. Women in older traditional societies of the past understood that a correct and just power redistribution between formal and informal power is necessary for the harmonious functioning of the society and relationships between married couples. Feminism wants to take away formal power from men, to leave women with the informal power and to abandon men without any power at all. In a certain sense, not only is the formal power and authority validated by the feminine, which is the embedded aspect of wisdom but male attributes, such as courage and confidence, are defined and need the feminine for approval and this purpose in overall terms. Other attributes such as integrity, honesty, and so on undergo a similar process. In essence, these folk tales and popular folklore reflect gynocentrism in the mythologies from which it has originated. This can be seen not only in Slavic mythology but also in the Semitic Canaanite one. In Semitic mythology, these were Ashra (the mother goddess) who was the de facto ruler, and her two daughters, Ashtoreth and Anat. Some say it symbolizes a spectrum and some say it's one aspect of the whole. Whatever it may be, they symbolized not only feminine sexuality in all its forms but also the combination of wisdom, courage, evil, and violence that can occur in women (as standing opposed to the one-sided demonization of men). To a large extent, Baba Yaga is a combination of Ashera and Anat (or vice versa the Canaanite trio exhibit the essence of Tabiti and Baba Yaga) in the sense of wisdom and other relating concepts as well as the correlation to violence. For example, we can mention here the skulls in Baba Yaga's hut and those that Anat was hanging on her waist as well as the resurrection of Baal by his sister Anat after being killed by his rivals and then put back by her on his throne. This element of wisdom and many other aspects were adopted in Judaism and Christianity as the concept of the Shekhina and Virgin Mary, as I explained above, as the mother of God (Mary) and the Goddess Mother (the Shekhina) respectively. Of course, this has been adapted in the two monotheistic religions, and it can be seen that these concepts migrated all over the religious spectrum back and forth and are adapted from culture to culture. It is similar to the idea that the monotheistic God is a combination of the pagan gods describing different qualities or aspects of him. It's the same process here and includes the female and feminine too. Feminism lied and said that religions are patriarchal and oppressing women. In reality, the opposite is true, religions are Gynocentric and do not oppress women at all The theism of any sort leads to a devaluation of males: the fivefold model of the emanating misandry and the three-step model of gynocentric gender power relations and dynamics originated from the abstract realm into the relative world of form and it's mirroring through the concept of God! This is true for all types of theistic traditions and it is because all of them are heavily gynocentric. Now, let's look at the dynamics that create this situation but first let's discuss the three stages model of gynocentric power dynamic and relations. The three stages model of gynocentric power relations and dynamics Up until now, our discussion can be summarized in a modem that I will refer to as the three-stages-model of gynocentric power dynamics and relations (TSM – GPDR). The TSM – GPDR is an interactive historical cognitive/epistemic model that juxtaposes and mirrors the gynocentric dynamic between the human realm of historical events and the abstract cognitive or metaphysical realm as is seen in religion, spirituality and the mutual relation between ultimate reality and human psycho cognitive base. In the human historical and material realm, it is expressed as the gynocentric three stages of historical and biological development: a) biological/evolutionary gynocentrism giving the female an in-built privileged position and advantage that is balanced through giving up some of her power while reducing the formal and balancing it with the informal one.; b) socio-cultural gynocentrism which symbolizes the attempt of reestablishing the female privileged and divine status in the human realm, and c) feminism which is taking it to extremity with and attempt to create an only female-dominated society. The same process is mirrored in the realm of religion through all esoteric, mystic Gnostic and heretical belief systems which assumes the privileged divine status as well as being the actual ruling power in the world (Shechinah) through which the male aspect of God is only mirrored which resembles the historical stage of evolutionary and biological gynocentrism that is balanced through giving up some of her power while reducing the formal and balancing it with the informal one (a) leading to the apposition of wisdom and Chochmah as part of the process of female and male dethroning of Pagan deities as for the creation of the monotheistic concept of God within the framework of keeping her essential position as the elevated part of the divine based upon giving up wisdom for the sake of faith and with the incentive to control and condition men (b) while at the last stage it aims at creating a female messianic era as it is thought by Guillaume Postel (c). Thus, we can see that historical gynocentric dynamics are mirrored and parallel those in religious realms. Indeed, we can say that religion doesn’t create gynocentrism but mirrors it's dynamic in an interactive model history and metaphysics. Now, let's look at the teachings of Guillaume Postel whose misandrist heritage and contribution of those ideals in modern feminism especially the third wave is exposed here for the first time and that also influenced a lot of the Hassidic Jewish thought. In his future view of the world and understanding of human destiny, Postel has foreseen a female messianic era that will be led by a female pope. In Postel's theology, men, as well as the church, are designated with four eras while we are now at the beginning of the fourth age, a model that resembles the three-stages-model and is only a more nuanced version with additional subcategory. Anyway, according to Postel the 4th epoch, whose truth has been hidden from the people, both in the Old as well as the New Testament, is revealed only to mystics and specifically to Postel himself. According to Postel, the first epoch is essentially a natural one that lasted until the times of the Biblical flood; The second era is that of the Old Testament; the third one is that of the New Testament; And the fourth age is the messianic era, one that, as we have said, will be a feminine age, led by a female pope, reminding us of the feminist concept of "the future is female". In this way, Postel effectively denies for the first time the egalitarian division of power embedded in all of the early Gynocentric societies, which was based on the division of formal and informal power and turns it on its head. In older gynocentric societies before Postel formal and informal power was divided equally and on an egalitarian basis between men and women as was proven by C.S. Rogers and my elaboration on her research. In those older and early gynocentric societies, the informal power always remained in the hands of women while the formal power, though not exclusively, remained in the hands of men. The reason behind this division was that the informal power is not only more important than the formal one and that it enables women to continue to control society as well as men but the fact that formal power stems from the informal one that also defines and controls it. In Postel's theology, both in practical as well as in symbolical terms, there not only arise now the concrete demand for the transfer of formal power to women, while the non-formal, remains in their hands but this has become a cornerstone of feminist thinking and pattern of political and social activism especially for women's organizations and feminist political activists, politicians, lobby, and power groups. Guillaume Postel was the first male feminist in the Proto-Renaissance feminism who has laid this foundation and cemented its authority on a religious basis and in religious terms. Hence, he did not only create the feminist but also the gynocentric misandry. Additionally, in Postel's thought, human beings have a fourfold nature that stands under the four eras of human history and God as described above. The three lower levels are composed of body, soul, and mind while the higher element is the Spiritus. While the first three according to Postel were redeemed by Jesus, the higher fourth element is still not redeemed by him and awaits its redemption by a woman in the messianic female era. Following this line of thought, Postel continues Agrippa's philosophy of the superior nature of women over men rooted in the traditional religious thought but here mainly expressed through the Cathar and Bogomil legacy which was one of the basic tenets of the Cathar religion and one of the elements constituting the fivefold foundation of feminism as determined in the Cathar tradition who may also have been the most-early source of influence on modern feminism. This construct was defined by Schmidt Biggemann as double Christology. Although Postel continues to see Jesus as the savior of humanity, his redemption is not only not completed, but it will be only accomplished in the messianic female era of the Spiritus. As we shall see immediately and even more strongly in contrast to Agrippa and others, the role of the female Christ as understood by Postel was not meant as an abstract idea at all but rather designed for a specific female figure. During his stay in Venice, Postel met a nun named Joanna and in Venice dialect, Zuana. The connection between Postel and Joanna not only became intense but also led to a strong mutual mystical fertilization when they created an esoteric feminist narrative in which Joanna became the Mother of the World and its female leader. It is interesting to mention that as part of those and other mystical experiences, Joanna was described as having esoteric intercourse (or sex) with Jesus, which resulted in the creation of spiritual pregnancy. Postel himself is the seed of this spiritual sexual experience. It is also interesting to note that part of the common Christian Kabbalistic heritage between Agrippa and Postel is the connection made by the latter between Joanna as the mother of the world and her as being the divine shekhinah itself and its presence. In other words, Joanna is identified with the feminine element of the deity that dominates the world and in a wider context with the feminine part of the androgynous from which everything stems. This, as we have said, was the basis for their prophecy of the feminine messianic era of the fourth epoch that they have discussed and that serves till this very day as the metaphysical and esoteric basis of the feminist struggle for a misandrist matriarchy and the concept that "the future is female". Postel and Joanna have seen Jesus as only bringing an incomplete male redemption. It is interesting to mention that in the 16th century there was an intensive occupation and flood of female saints so the figure of Joanna is neither paradoxical nor some somewhat strange. It continues the heretical Cathar heresy in the same places in Italy where women were fully integrated into the religious life, practice and also acted as religious figures of authority. Whether Joanna or Postel with their heretical teachings were Cathars or not, something that is yet to be proven by further research, or belonged to the mainstream ecclesiastical nomination is less important as to define the fact that women were not living under patriarchal religious oppression but still keeping all of the informal power lived on the contrary in a gynocentric society that has favored them and still gave them the privilege to participate in the circles of formal power – a privilege that isn't granted to men even today (and who still lack any informal power). In the same way, as it was with the Cathars and the troubadours as long as the heretical teachings were fitting in the clerical doctrine and dogma of the church, we are mainly talking about the gynocentric and feminist ideals, all of this was adopted into the mainstream of the Christian thought. In her book "A Kabbalistic Christian Messiah in the Renaissance: Guillaume Postel and the book of Zohar", Judith Weiss mentions a few of those women as well as their lifestyle characteristics. Those were Veronica da Milano, Veronica da Binasco (1445 – 1497), Osanna Andreasi (1449 – 1505), Stephana Quinzani (1457 – 1530), Colomba di Rieti (1467 – 1501), Arcangela Panigarola (1468 – 1525), Chiara Bugni (1471 – 1514), Lucia Brocadelli da Narni (14761544), Catherina Mattei de Racoconigi (1486 – 1547) (1508 – 1555) and Paola Antonia Negri. Only to give a few examples! Judith Weiss also mentions in the book Gabriella Zari's research and outlines the character of those women's lifestyle that is interesting for understanding our case. All of those women were leading an extremely ascetic way of life especially the diet sometimes almost at the edge of starvation denying themselves food and meals. They all came normally from a very simple and often illiterate background meaning they probably did not belong to the social elites of their time. Despite this fact, they've become literate through their religious activities. Those were normally men with a position of formal power and authority monks and/or within the hierarchical ranks of the church that advanced and celebrated them. The result was that those women influenced great masses of believers and had accordingly a lot of followers. As to their roles of spiritual advisors they were highly influential figures. As being believed and seen as having revelations and prophecies those women served also as political advisors to various officials who came to ask them for their guidance. It is interesting to note although as aforesaid that it requires further research that most of those characteristics are under the Cathar way of life and especially the extreme ascetic practice particularly the diet abstaining from food almost to the point of starvation. Again, whether those were Cathars themselves or Cathar influences adopted in the mainstream Christianity it shows both the great influence of women, the strong support of men not only in advancing the noble but especially the ordinary women of that time and thus the very early dynamic of institutionalized male feminism and the increasingly growing shift of formal power from the male into the female domain of informal power. Thus, the early beginning of the accumulation of all forms of power as is also seen and evident in modern feminism can be also traced back to the proto or renaissance feminism of the 15th and 16th centuries. Guillaume Postel was the spiritual and actual father of this dynamic. Here it should be mentioned that in another work written by Francois Bilon we can see that Postel's influence whom he explicitly mentions, was far-reaching in spreading feminist and misandrist ideas and maybe even more than that of Agrippa. One of Bilon's works, "The Impregnable Fort of the Honor of the Feminine Sex", published in 1555, one of the discussions is dedicated to the strength and the nobility of women. It is also sectioned into three chapters: the first, having no title attributed to this passage of the work, is a collection of female figures which are celebrated for their competency and proficiency as warriors as well as their capacity to exercise power; the next part deals with holy things and the third one is coming back to the subject of warfare. Joan of Arc is mentioned in the first passage, in a series of early, biblical, and up-to-date figures from French history. It depicts the image of the warrior who predominates and it is female. The passage devoted to the Maid focuses on the seat of Orleans and the betrayal that brought her to death. The Maid is portrayed as capable of meeting both the poor as well as the noble ladies of Orleans. There is a great chance that the link established between Joan of Arc and the noble female audience was inspired by the Very Wonderful Victories of the New World Women, published in 1553 (two years before the impregnable Fort of the honor of feminine sex). In addition to bearing very clear traces of intertextuality (especially allusion to "Celtic Gaul"), Billon as I said above explicitly mentions Postel, which he classifies as one of the defenders of women, along with Claude de Taillemont and Jean Du Pre and others. This is an extremely important piece of evidence as it clearly shows not only the vast amount of men involved in feminism already in its protohistory, not only it refutes the notion of misogyny but specifically in the context of our discussion it shows the central position of Postel within the feminist movement and his contribution as we will see later Except for Postel's "The very wonderful victories of the women of the new world" to which we will return and are going to elaborate in detail, also the work of Agrippa, as I mentioned above, was essential praise of the female gender too in that it gave women the theological approval, point of view and the basis for female supremacy by seeking to position women above men in all aspect and elevate them to a status of goddesses. The enthusiasm to elevate women above men should not be seen as a paradox, as we've seen in the research women in gynocentric society wielded all of the informal power as well as formal power to a large extent, but it is a natural continuation of the troubadour legacy including the religiously theological Cathar heritage and background. In that sense, this dynamic symbolizes and is a typical reflection of the Renaissance feminism or the proto-feminist era which shaped, heavily influenced and embraced the reception of distinct feminist textual lineage in terms of the subsequent collective praise of women on behalf of a theological reflection which will be not only limited to the new as well as the old testament but also in terms of the mystical tradition of both Judaism and Christianity. Agrippa's Declamation itself undergoes an esoteric reorientation and mystical adaptation according to a new audience and the subsequent Cathar – Bogomil heritage. "That the excellence of women is greater that of man is another example of such adaptation and exploration of the discourse on women beginning in the Bogomil Cathar heresy and drawn to the extremity in the theological thought of Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa and Guillaume Postel which is a natural continuation of this heritage over a time frame close to almost 300 hundred years. First of all, there are arguments taken from the Bible and they are summed up to the top of the topic. Examples of women worthy of the praise of the Old and New Testaments are given too. The discussion revolves around the qualities women: courage, constancy in love and charity, an area of influence of which the women of the court of Henry II are the figures of the bow: "How many are there in the court of France that the most learned men of the country, I will not say in theology, but in the human sciences, would not dare to wait to contradict about? Then - and this is the most important aspect - beyond the content of the old and new testament the declaration of the superiority of the female sex ends up in a more specific perspective of rhetoric which is now based in religious misandry, female supremacy as well as extreme gynocentrism and is rooted in a mystic explanation of the Kabbala as well as more typical Christian esoteric thought. Moreover, the year 1553 saw the first edition and publication of Postel's "The Very wonderful victories of the women of the new world" which predicted the female matriarchal world order which we will continue to discuss immediately. The text of Guillaume Postel impregnated with mysticism, penetrated with a prophetic voice, it announces the presence on earth of a new redemptive Eve, designated to Joanna, starting the era of feminine matriarchy that will replace men which also was coupled with the advent of an entrenched temporal monarchy in French soil. In that, Guillaume Postel's theological thought exhibited, in fact, a sort of a conglomerate of matriarchy, mysticism, esotericism, and (French) nationalism that goes hand in hand with the old French Cathar heresy in Occitan. Although rejected by secular and religious authorities, both by Henry II who ordered his pursuit by the parliament and that by the inquisition of Venice which sentenced him to prison. This text claims to be part of Christian eschatology additionally to the fact that Guillaume Postel had a big influence on Christian thought. This shifted vision is, of course, an adaptation and does not necessarily as we have seen throughout the research contradicts or is at odds with Christian dogma and doctrine; unique and unclassifiable, it is nevertheless related to the theme of the medieval virgin and strives to define women as part of the Christian tradition which is successfully done both by Agrippa as well as Guillaume Postel. Borrowing from the collective praise of women, for example, the virtuous women as well as certain female figures from the old testament, it must be read as an attempt to make the unconventional content of female supremacy acceptable in religious terms and justified by it. "The very wonderful victories of women of the new world" occupy a strong and crucial position both in theology as well as in the primordial place in which they place women in the total interpretation and the main legal focus of the societal and legal system that they define. With the internal logic of their own, they constitute a dynamic aiming at putting women both in the main position or acquisition of formal as well as informal power while starting a public theological debate on women as part of collective praise. The current dynamic of the constant approval and appraisal of women while degrading and demonizing men can also be traced back to those basic undercurrents started with Guillaume Postel and his ingrained feminist misandry. The warning that closes the dedication "Read carefully before judging" is an appeal to the reader to the unfettered exercise of critical thinking. This formula is very often found within the context and variations on controversial text and works. This might be natural for mystics and occultists as Postel, Agrippa and others, convinced opponents of the reformed or mainstream religion but it is of course not for the average people. More generally, it aims at creating a public discourse and reading, a practice characterized by free will. The importance of the heroes as well as the subsequent readers of Postel is - if we look at it well - also present at Agrippa and Estienne, through the invitation to the development of the thesis of the superiority as well as the supremacy of the female sex by continuators on the one hand and the call for exploring a new path to the truth on the other hand. In the texts of Agrippa and Postel in particular, the hermeneutical attitude required from the reader has directly related to the cross-examination of sacred text readings judged inadequate: the rejection of scholasticism in the first, re-appropriation of the Christian heritage in the second. The preeminence of God as the ultimate source of truth, however, is no questioning. Despite the different circumstances and in full adaptation to the new situation this is the same metaphysic that we encounter today in feminist thought and the (female welfare state) paradigm only that in some wings of feminism especially the left-wing state replaces God. All of this presents a fundamental issue of the collective praise of women and it does not only concern the work of Agrippa but besides the declamation, Charles Estienne's assumption "That the excellence of the woman is greater than that of the man" is also valid to "The Very wonderful victories of the women of the new world" of Guillaume Postel which also stands out as a cornerstone of feminist misandry already in the 16th century. As a hallmark of this emergence, it is a feminist and a misandrist text based on the principles explained above. The collective supremacist praise of women, which in most texts mentioned here provides a specific representation of the auctorial figure on the one hand but the other one incorporates a universal message, not only modulates this affirmation or contradicts this fact but in Guillaume Postel's works and theological thought it also presents us with a concrete female figure that will constitute an actual person in terms of a feminine Messiah. The position of the author in the face of his narrative is not due to disinterest in the question of the construction of God's ethos or a "regression" by relation to the emergence of the auctorial figure in texts with an architectural metaphor but on the contrary, in Postel's work, it is identified with a concrete specification. The interpretive vagueness on the one side as well as a real specification on the other one is both a part of the covert as well as the clandestine gynocentric approach to get what women want without making it too evident. In many cases one does not have to speak all the many instances; in many cases, one does not have to speak all the involved intentions; yet, in all of them, everything is clear and evident. It does not happen due to erasure or disappearance, but due to an elaboration of the author's representation which is true in all terms and means. This concealment game leads to increased hermeneutic activity on the part of the reader. Self-reflexive, Agrippa's, as well as Postel's work, accumulates calls for exteriority of the speech: they give themselves to be read as a communication process. Open on the reader, both by the meta-discursive insertions specifying the plan and argumentative progression that by the final call explicit to the continuation of the reflection, it constitutes a call to intellectual exchange and dialogue. The opening remarks of Charles Estienne and especially that of Guillaume Postel in his "very wonderful victories of the women of the new world", does not go as far as to propose to continue the debate. This last text - especially being a closed, a monologic system – it solicits the reader, whom they invite to take a position and to which they concede the right to take sides with their work. Postel proposes the feminist matriarchy in terms of a deterministic history utilizing manipulation and deception; a well-known feminist tactic. Moreover, "The very wonderful victories of the women of the new world" that was written by Postel after the death of Joanna can be considered as his monumental and probably the most important one. I have mentioned already "The Impregnable Fort of the Honor of the Feminine Sex", published in 1555, which is tightly related to "The very wonderful victories of the women of the new world", however, the book that is even more associated with this work of Postel is the well-known feminist work namely "La querelle de femmes" whereas Postel has written his book as a part of this dynamic and where his thought about the feminine era led by a female Pope specifically as incorporated by Joanna fits into the narrative and the message of "La querelle de femmes" as we have explained it. In addition to the above explanation, it is worth adding that the "Querelle des femmes" basically discusses the topics of female superiority over men, including in terms of sexuality, all the positive achievement of the world that women have contributed and many more. Joanna is mentioned here as a part of women who were prophetesses whereas he also mentions Angelina from Pollini and Katarina from Sienna. Postel also discusses other women in his work and especially with great emphasis on Joan of Arc, "the first Joanna", which was also an extremely important figure in "The Impregnable Fort of the Honor of the Feminine Sex" written by Francois Bilon. Postel has extensively dealt with Joan of Arc in many of his works which went as far as writing an essay about her in the Hebrew language and to the Jewish readers. Moreover, it is not true as some feminist researchers claim including Weiss itself that Postel saw women as inferior addressing them as the lower part of the hermeneutical hierarchy which contradicts both their writings as well as Postel himself. Lower and higher in hermeneutical and mystical esoteric terms incorporate merely a technical message and not judgmental one of emanation. Second, Postel as continuing Agrippa's thought continues to praise women in al realms and positioning them above men no matter what. As we've seen this is even true in terms of sexuality where he continues the Bogomil Cathar legacy of eve being raped by a man (meaning the male snake symbolizing male energy as an archetype for all men) that I have discussed in another part of my research. Women from this point of view are not responsible for their actions and men should avoid women as a sort of trouble brought by their actions not through female ones and on part of all women. Having also described a future of female matriarchy it is also evident that the beneficiaries will be women even if this isn't mentioned. The shift of power where men are losing the formal one and women accumulate it alongside with the informal power that completely remains in their hands incorporated the idea of women controlling, oppressing and exploiting men even without needing to say it overtly. The claim that Postel hasn't spoked about female virtues but those of men is like pointing to a white color describing it as black while doing the same with black describing it as white. As we have seen all of those works including those of Postel are talking only about female virtues, their pre-excellence, their higher position, and their supremacy over men, both in the ordinary as well as in the higher spiritual realm. Postel, the same way as Agrippa did before him, does not see men and women as being equal but those are women who in Postel's and Agrippa's thought are superior to men and not vice versa - not to speak that from Bilon's account he was indeed described as the defender of women or what we tend to call today a feminist white knight! Now, a few words about the more practical influence of Postel's work and its implementation within the context of the modern welfare state aiming at creating a female matriarchy led by feminists. In our discussion on the modern welfare state that is based on a discourse by Pasi Malmi from the University of Lapland where I surveyed the relevant elements about the misandrist feminist nature of the modern welfare state within the context of Postel's thought, we will find that feminists, despite their ideological background, right or left, have successfully implemented and integrated those power dynamics as outlined by Postel into the modern welfare state utilizing emanation from its esoteric foundation into the very practical realm of daily life and activism – political and social. The structures of modern states enfold the fundamentals and many principles that make specifically the modern welfare states susceptible to the damages of different power groups and institutions. They are especially exposed to the Gynocentric pressure of the feminist lobby and women’s interest groups! It is not only a hallmark of left-wing feminism whereas we can find those dynamics on liberal right-wing feminism too. However, those dynamics are still much more evident on the left than on the right-wing. I will elaborate on the dangers of the feminist left-wing welfare state below; however, the conservative and liberal states may also develop such structural clusters that are heavily biased by the ideological influence of feminist organizations against men. Based on Postel's as well as Agrippa's esoteric and metaphysical foundation, the theoretical feminist ideology that supports the growth of the matriarchal state relies upon such concepts as the conservative belief in the superiority of the state, the left-wing legal interventionism and the false belief in then need to favor the allegedly and falsely perceived disadvantaged groups which our research disproved. In the misandrist grievances narrative and the feminist victimhood mentality created by their works, those sets of beliefs may also arise in a more far-reaching and misandrist version in the context margin of the modern state paradigm. This is the scenario in which the feminist Gynocentric ideal replaces the traditional role of men as providers and protectors through a much more sophisticated system and implementation of the traditional gender roles in which all men now support and protect the wife instead of her husband through taxes paid by all men through which additionally the personal aspect of the relationship is eradicated through an impersonal and faceless system of the state and its alleged "welfare" institutions. In Postel's work, it took the form of a complex play between the covert and the overt, the hidden and the obvious, and within the frame of the clandestine nature of the gynocentric matrix as we will be discussing below. Additionally, according to the false belief and fabricated hegemonic narrative created by such thinkers as Platon, Machiavelli, Hegel, and Bastiani, which disregard the fact that society is the sum of all individual thus incorporating and exhibiting more than one narrative and a wide array and nets of beliefs, concepts, and ideals at the same time, the feminist state based on its female narrative is now seen as a morally and rationally superior entity compared to the unsophisticated mass of citizens, especially which is a continuation of Postel's vision of the female feminist matriarchy. In that sense, any disagreement or criticism will be labeled as some sort of counter-revolution and a primitive backlash. A sort of secular blasphemy adopted from its religious source. This means that the policymakers and bureaucrats of the state are believed to have a better knowledge of the needs, wishes and problems of citizens than the citizens themselves, the same way a God possesses over simple mortals, whereas even the male leaders are part of this dynamic and matrix simply by the virtue of the fact that they were indoctrinated with millennia-long gynocentric ideals. Such developments and dynamics may lead at the end to a highly conceited bureaucratic elitism, which makes the bureaucrats and politicians unwilling to listen to the people’s perceptions of their problems. The tendency of officials to consider the state bureaucracy as superior to the citizens may also lead as I said to the assumption that all criticism against the organizations and institutions as well as and especially the social elites is inexperienced, primitive and backsliding; also posing a real risk to the further development of society. That is the reason why usual citizens might not be able to get their voices heard by the state officials and institutions. Rooted in Socialist, Marxist - Leninist and Feminist theories, this elitist welfare state ideology is a threat to the freedom and well-being especially its male citizens. In the feminist and matriarchal context of the modern state, this belief in the moral superiority of women as well as the rational superiority of the state itself, not only is rooted in the proto-feminist era of the renaissance feminism but in practical terms has led to legal actions taken by the state apparatus in terms of institutional state violence against men which continued the legacy of Eleanor of Aquitaine and her courts of love that enables the use of state violence against men. It is both the ideology as well as the very practical action of the state according to which, there is a need for the government to control men and women who support them, by giving benefits or privileges to women at the expense of men and the social actors lobbying and campaigning for them. A more moderate form of such active state role may also appear in public campaigns and that aims to selectively support female and women's causes sometimes purely invented while neglecting the issues of men. Those campaigns are part of the state policy to brainwash men with the ideals of the feminist and gynocentric matrix. They try to manipulate the opinions, values, norms, attitudes, and behaviors of its male as well as the female citizens who support them so they adapt to the feminist matriarchal and Gynocentric narrative of society. As this false narrative of ultimate equality is given the priority by the radical activists and politicians, they tend to accept and sacrifice the formal and relative type of equality, which means the equal treatment of individuals in front of the law. In other words, the intentional favoring of the members of the alleged disadvantaged groups are permitted, even if it might cause discrimination against people who do not belong to these groups. This systematic oppression and discrimination of men are precisely how the false narrative of reverse discrimination is excused so more and more unearned privileges are given to women at the expense of basic human rights of men. This in return means of course the favoring of some groups of people at the cost of the alleged “privileged group" and it's a basic type of feminist misandry perpetrated by the gynocentric state system itself. It is important to bear in mind that the ultimately radical perception of equality at the expense of its relative form tends to lead to a situation, in which only strong and well-organized interest groups, which can present their members as disadvantaged, are served by the authorities of the state. They are the ones who will receive transfer payments, special treatment, and privileges from the administrators. It is the essence of the feminist lobby and women's organizations that are supported by the state and in return, it shapes its policies! As the women’s feminist interest group organizations have substantially more discursive, economic, political and social power resources than the MHRM (Men's Human Rights Movement), they are likely to be able to falsely present women as the discriminated group that deserves substantial benefits and favorable treatment from the welfare states. In this political game, the MHRM organizations are likely to be closed out of the public equality policies, as it is difficult for the public officials to understand the dominators and discriminators of men and that men in fact could be discriminated in society. The radical interpretation of equality is also commonly connected to envy and suspicion against the privileged group. This is supported and spread by Marxist and Leninist theories and gender ideologues, which claim that the privileged position of the richer, the more powerful, and better-educated people is based on the oppression of the less educated and less wealthy groups. This kind of hatred against upper social classes appeared historically in the form of communist terror against nobles, businessmen, landowners, and academic people in the Soviet Union after the revolution. This kind of hatred was also adopted by feminists based on its common roots with Marxist and Leninist heritage and is expressed today as overwhelming misandry against all men. This socialist discrimination against the privileged groups also appeared in the way in which the Soviet legal system tended to put the burden of proof on the defendants if they belonged to the “privileged group”. It is the same policy that is adopted today in the legal system of the modern feminist welfare state. Additionally, and even without the in-built misandry and the discrimination of men, these radical developments of the welfare state ideology, may also lead to a general hatred against men – who are supposed to be the dominant social group – and towards the reversing of the burden of proof, in such a fashion that men need to prove their innocence in court. Alongside with the media and other state institutions, the legal system forms the heart of the misandrist, systemic and institutionalized. Its other words, it is the heart of the feminist heartless world. In essence, socialism, the social democratic as well as all forms of socialism and social democracy are anti-male and misandrist. They are principally based on a four-fold lie: first, the myth of patriarchy that was refuted both in general as well as in my research; second, the fact that even if there was patriarchy it does not mean that men by definition benefit from it; third, a lie that is tightly connected to the first one namely that the existing patriarchy harms men which is impossible simply by the virtue of being an internal contradiction because patriarchy by definition must benefit men and thus if it hurts them it does not exist; And the last one, again tightly connected to the second lie namely that even if the patriarchy existed men didn't have to participate in its alleged privileges, which if denied would mean that no change in history would have been possible, a point that can be proven by simple fact check throughout the history. Each historical change is rooted in the fact that people having heart and consciousness rejected systems if they went too far. Radicalized welfare state ideology as well as the field of social work that I have extensively discussed in another discourse is the spearhead in the feminist war declared on men and the realm through which most or at least a lot of Postel's ideas are used against them. It is not only that it leads to indirect discrimination of men in the context of divorce and custody for instance but it is seen all over the front. According to the radicalized, left-wing, interpretation of the welfare state ideology, social groups can be divided into disadvantaged and privileged groups. Based on this dichotomic thinking, one can then conclude that it is the task of the state and municipalities to help the members of the disadvantaged groups by creating a systematic bias in favor of the disadvantaged groups. This means, in practice, that reverse discrimination is applied against the members of those social groups that are in a dichotomic way categorized as privileged. This line of argumentation is also likely to lead to the perception of the privileged social groups as “oppressors” of the disadvantaged social groups. This is likely to induce hatred and rage against the members of the privileged groups. For example, the Marxist tradition contains an element which encourages the members of disadvantaged groups to value their rage, as this rage can be converted into the changes of the society. If these arguments are falsely connected to the deceptive and incorrect assumption that women are the disadvantaged gender and that men are the privileged gender, the narrative of the radical welfare state ideology is likely to induce reverse discrimination and encourage female hatred against all men although as we have said, even in the case that the patriarchy did exist (and it not), most of the men wouldn't have benefited anything from or would have wanted to participate in it. The hate that the feminist welfare state encourages is blind and extremely pervasive. This discrimination and hatred may also appear in an intersectional manner, in such a fashion that women, homosexuals, and ethnic minorities are perceived as disadvantaged, while heterosexual men of the ethnic majority are perceived as the privileged group, which is a free target for all criticism, hatred, and reverse discrimination. These radicalized elements of the welfare state ideology are easily connected to the professional ethics of social work, which encourage social workers to identify themselves with their customers and with disadvantaged social groups in general. If women are assumed to be a disadvantaged social group, the professional ethics of social work are likely to pressure social workers towards the favoring of women in custody disputes, the hatred of men, and their discrimination at all costs. This form of memetic reasoning is likely to amplify the maternalist and feminist bias and the result is paid by male blood. It is the epidemic of male suicide that is the modern gender cleansing and it is all feminist work, indoctrination, training, and doings. The misandrist heart of a feminist heartless world! The fourfold model of emanating misandry (FMEM)! First dynamic: "All theistic paths lead to misandry and the degree of theism and the context of gynocentrism is directly proportional to the extent of misandry: Why would theism lead to misandry? The reasons are palpable. Let's explore that a little bit more. All theistic traditions raging from polytheism over, Judaism, Christianity to environmentalism, and even various social-economic systems require a few structures and modes of organization that almost guarantee misandry. The problem is that based on basic Gynocentrism men tend to internalize this and without the attitude of free inquiry, not only males but every institution despite who's the leader will reflect female interests, not man. A change in attitude requires free and inquiry in the search of truth and wisdom that liberates rather than basic it on blind faith and emotion. However, theism requires at least a certain level of blind faith and credo thus men are doomed to live with the internalized gynocentrism. In the three-stages-model, it resembles the apposition or better said the exchange of values between wisdom (Chochma) and faith (Emunah), both of them female in the Hebrew language. While in this exchange of values in the dethroning process the divine female remained in her position of power within the concept of God as holding the most important aspect of theism that is faith, the devaluation in value affected more men as it is as standing opposed to wisdom being female by nature it is more male incentive to look for it for liberation rather that of a woman to control men against their interest over blind faith which is the essence of the blue pill metaphor as being blindsided by the gynocentric matrix, its taboos and being part of the Gynocentric Conditioning Axis (GCA), the Cognitive Epistemic Gynocentrism (EPG/a), the Conceptual Epistemic Gynocentrism (EPG/b) as well as the Interpretative Epistemic Gynocentrism (EPG/c) Thus, whether we have a "patriarchy" or not it will always reflect and support female needs and desires, never those of men. Disguised as a male narrative as lip service. Think about it. As toddlers, we are cared more by our mothers. If not mothers then the grandmothers and sisters. In the kinder garden and schools, this is a mainly female workforce. It's only in the army, the university, and work that we begin to exchange experience more with men. But then it's too late because the crucial years were spent with females. And it is very hard to change the learned perceptions and emotional habits. That is also an aspect of gynocentrism which is a cross-cultural phenomenon. The most disgusting example is feminist men! They require either some church, an institution of the religious authority of some kind, some writings who nobody can question, methods to prosecute the ‘unbeliever’ in the ‘true word’ or as we said either a religious, economic intermediary that we can call patriarchy or give it any other name. Most of you might realize that any system which spends a lot of time justifying its existence and operations requires uncritical and easily led followers, as opposed to free thinkers. Any guesses on which gender is more predisposed to being uncritical followers and which one is more predisposed to free thinking? You are right. Women and feminism! Therefore, throughout all of history women-led fewer social changes, were more traditional and shaped our communities and home. Second Dynamic: especially monotheistic religions, both traditional and secular, but not only, have to spend a lot of their efforts on waging war against the unbelievers. This is another crucial dynamic concept that is related to the most basic aspect and cornerstones of gynocentrism namely the Male Disposability Constant (MDC) or the disposability of men as it is usually called and that is widely discussed in the research and the book. Wars require of course male combat-soldiers that are used as a disposable utility for the benefit of women. Those same disposable utilities are also required as baby-making machines for supplying more disposable male utilities in future wars. As standing opposed to the Marxist bogus theory it is not economy or materialism but gynocentrism that drives war. To disguise it one again the straw men of patriarchy and its myth was created. In a hypothetical war between two tribes even if most men perish and only a few survive those few can get all fertile female pregnant thus the tribe survives and the cycle goes on. Even secular monotheistic faiths such as social and economic mindsets and environmentalism require compliant foot soldiers who will piss on people below them and fight the unbelievers so that they can obtain a few scraps as a reward for their compliance. Third Dynamic: theistic religions blame misfortune on personal failings to induce guilt and compliance in their followers From polytheism to Judaism over Christianity and almost every single secular mindset even as environmentalism and others - those faiths always gaslight and blame the victim. According to them, your failures were due to personal shortcomings, ‘personality defects’, and ‘sins’. They actively deny the role of personal growth, the ability to change and take your destiny in your hand and try to portray events as designed rather than occurring through the rule of cause and effect. They always require some big brother whether it is a divine or a mundane one. Later, they will blame their inability on everyone else rather than look at their actions thus those religions create also a victimhood mentality. Again, who is more inclined to this? Right, feminist women! Consider this. if your wife is cheating behind your back, it is “because you were not a man enough”,” did not make enough money”, “was not a good provider”, "haven't entertained her enough", "didn't pay enough attention", "didn't clean enough at home". "Didn't do enough house core", "she was lonely", "she was unhappy", "she was resentful", "she was angry", she was a damsel in distress. Yet, if you cheated you are a misogynist pig and oppressor. But most married women who screw around do so with men who make less and are often less conventionally successful, looking less good, are less man, less Alpha, than their husbands. It is called in the research "affair down". And at the end, they also crawl back to their betrayed spouse. Fourth Dynamic: They all deliberately create an underclass, as a warning to those who would defy them. Organized religions, all of them together, as well as any other secular paths that are institutional as standing opposed to spiritual paths that are more personal and individual, have to create an underclass of people to merely exist. Unless they can convince most people that noncompliance has bad consequences in this life, they might get an increasing number of unbelievers with each year. They do so via various laws, procedures, and organizations. Think about it- isn’t your FICO score a lot like inquisitors file on your misdeeds and compliance. Isn’t being shunned as environmentally unfriendly not dissimilar to being labeled as ‘sinful’! I can give you many more examples if you want them. As we have seen those institutions are crucial to maintaining gynocentrism. Partly as a support system for women and partly to create the straw men called patriarchy. This is perfectly incorporated today in the modern welfare state that now as institution replaces the traditional man to support the female caprices, to oppress men as well will see in the second discourse of the research and book as well as serving as a lip service of the patriarchy to turn men into a scapegoat. They all promise true believers rewards, which can only be redeemed in the distant future or after death. Think about it! What does a good religious man get in this life!? Can they guarantee the end of your suffering, the quality of your afterlife and legacy - never mind whether they exist or matter? What does a good drone that cheers for that or other social or economic system get? The promise of wealth and money when you can no longer enjoy it? What does a good environmentally-minded guy get? Peace and harmony on earth, the end of suffering, and mental well-being - and how exactly will you be enjoying that? Now go back to believing in the theistic faith of your choice. You know you like it, don’t you? Many of you will never realize that Christianity, Judaism, Islam, polytheistic traditions, capitalism are just as misandrist as communism, socialism, and feminism. Remember that the reason they are misandry is structural, not ideological. As we are coming to reach the end of this model discourse it might seem as though we deem all women to be evil by their nature. This is of course false interpretation of the above dynamics. Women are not evil by their nature and they are not born to hate men. It is not their true nature. The dynamics are not rooted in the natural gynocentrism 1:0 but the socially constructed gynocentrism 2:0. As standing opposed to the theistic traditions this is also not about some original sin of the woman but delusion and ignorance. It can be overcome with the cultivation of wisdom and insight. Additionally, we are all, men and women part of a greater bubble of delusions. We all share basic ignorance. Men have also their problems and can create great misery and pain in the world. It can be wars for different reasons or just different types of pain. We all have to work on that. Having discussed those models let's move forward in our discussion and tackle some more crucial aspects in this regard. In one of the most articulate statements related to the theory of emanation in the Kabbalah, this process as an exposition of the flow along with those gynocentric constants and axis addresses all the realms of reality compactly. The abstract thought and volition, identical to the first SEFIRAH, is considered as including everything; later expansions only make overt what is initially covert. The term “emanation” as I will use it here is both the description of an act of emerging or incorporating a flow from the abstract to the relative, from the divine to the earthly, as well as a reference to a special ontological process, which is identified with the axis of ultimate reality-wisdom-speech-narrative-authority-actions of action that follows across the gynocentric constant and the as well as the gynonormative and gynocentric conditioning and dominance axis. As such, the axis is described in esoteric teachings and mysticism as the tree of life or the Ten SEFIROT in the Kabbalah that stand for the ten divine powers. Likewise, the ‘Atarah, another feminine concept and Hebrew word, was perceived as taking root in divine thought before the highest of the SEFIROT related powers. Unlike the divine vertical order that allocates the last position to the ‘Atarah in the realm of emanation, which is described as “action,” for the human understanding of the divine system, the SEFIRAH that is last on the ontological hierarchy is the first that human thought understands. The first thought for the human, namely, what is first supposed to be evolving from the divine realm, namely the lowest divine display, is for the divine the last action, an enactment of the divine thought. The vertical order relates to a noetic observation that assumes that the last sefirot can be better known. Here, as in the earlier sources mentioned in this chapter, the Kabbalist focuses on ontological and theosophical topics and a certain epistemological reflection, without attributing to the last SEFIRAH a visible gender-related role, despite the grammatical feminine gender of ‘Atarah. In a strongly hierarchical system such as the sefirotic one is in most of its manifestations, attributing a profound connection between the last and first sefirah represents an attempt to preserve some form of unity in this diversified realm of divine powers. While having on the one side to explain an ultimate reality putting aside the different types linguistic, it is, therefore, important to understand and differ between the ultimate, unborn - abstract wisdom and its emanation into other realms of knowledge and intelligence which are born, relative and not ultimately always true as even paradigm changes (and shifts) within science itself show. In that sense the ultimate wisdom, the abstract - unborn is eternal and primordial; other forms are born and emanate from it. The next one is the born wisdom and it is followed by various stages, level, and realms of intelligence up to the last and lower pieces in the chain of originating wisdom, intelligence, and knowledge which are bits of data and information. In this context despite the unborn wisdom there exist non dually personal as well as (conventional) collective forms of wisdom and intelligence leading to knowledge based on data and information. Not only this is the dwelling realm of the collective conventional knowledge but it is also the place where it is created. Thus, gynocentric collective - conventional knowledge and narrative is formed in the born, conditioned realm of the narrative and this is the root dimension of its origins. Despite the feminist's and the blue pill's claims, gynocentric conventional - collective wisdom is not the ultimate truth and it is wrong and falsely fabricated narrative. The feminine hypostasis of those phenomena, beginning in the non-sexual entity, is bound to the hypostatic transformation of the concepts of thought and action while the feminine dimension is inserted into its interpretation related to the epistemic and ontological gynocentrism over the gynocentric axis. Looking further at the ten SEFIROTH we recognize that the upper fourfold construct consists of Crown (Male), Wisdom, Knowledge, and Understanding. The male crown is symbolic while the three female hypostases are of true significance and power. Looking at the lower construct we see Reign (female), eternity, glory, and foundation (three male hypostases). First, there is a reversal in hypostases were the upper ones are dominantly female but once reversed in the bottom where male hypostases are predominant the female one still holds the reign and the position of power Thus, while the crown is symbolic male hypostasis, everything else is wrapped up in female hypostases beginning from wisdom, understanding, and knowledge and resulting in reign and authority which is the link between the androgynous and the none androgynous realm, between the ultimate and the relative and between the born and unborn. Before we continue, we must consider, the process of gynocentric emanation: A) It is a process of saturating reality with the gynocentric constituents/elements/nature/hypostasis through all its dimensions, physical as well as mental and cognitive. B) The process of gynocentric emanation between the different realities can take place "as a wave" or "as a particle": 1) The Gynocentric emanation as a stream, flow or movement 2) The Gynocentric emanation as an epistemic hypostatic emanation Thus beginning with the feminine eternal and primordial hypostases of wisdom, understanding, and knowledge (which resonates with Eastern Dharmic concepts of mind as the forerunner of all phenomena) in the realm of thoughts it emanates into narrative, word, and speech were it then becomes deeds and actions and altogether with habits and character, both in the real of private and public gynocentrism as well as deeds, actions and authority mainly in the realm of public gynocentrism where the male authority is surrounded, supervised and checked by female hypostases. In the famous Jewish Esoteric Shabbat song, we read the following phrase: Go, my Beloved, to meet the Bride; let us welcome the Shabbat. Come, let us go to welcome the Shabbat, for it is the source of blessing; from the beginning, from a foretime, it was emanated; last in creation, first in thought. Here, the beloved, the groom, is the eternal God and thus the Shabbat, the female counterpart, the bride, is both considered primordial and female. Thus, alongside God, the groom, she is the divine bride constituting the androgynous construct of the deity that is both male and female. However, at the same time in other realms of emanation, in Jewish esoteric terms the divine female and God, are reuniting even sexual terms which are mirrored my husband (as a duty) and his wife (Legally not her duty) on Shabbat. Then, it continues and stated that the Shabbat, the divine female is the source of blessing, which is also a feminine hypostasis. So, blessing, as well as the source of blessing, is essence female and it takes its origin from the divine. And the last statement reinforces it by stating that being first in thought which is female and last in creation the male was emanated from the female. This phrase does not necessarily contradict the creation story in the bible, as here the Female emanates the Male, not vice versa, but it must be understood that the biblical verse addresses a different and later part of the gynocentric emanation in the physical world. This is understood as the emanation of Wisdom, namely from a place that is conceived to be higher than everything else. It's not the female but the male as I already have explained that is subordinated. Both, the esoteric as well as the biblical story are merely mirroring the myth of male dominance and power while the mystic exposes that which the bible tries to hide. Furthermore, if we shortly return the vertical – circular emanation and reversion with the tree of life and the SEFIROT as concerning this Shabbat song, it is important to consider the Hebrew phrase of כתר מלכות (Keter Malchut) which means the crown of the kingship. While kingship is as such considered androgynous the symbolic part belongs to the male while the actual one is female (Keter in Hebrew is male; Malchut in Hebrew is female. While in the vertical construct the crown stands symbolically at the top and Malchut wielding the actual power at the bottom, in the circular form if we turn the whole construct upside down we see the true nature of the female as the source of all emanation while the male and female build together the outside frame which makes the three of life basically both in the divine as well as in the earthly realm gynocentric. And that's the way how this reversal not only preserves the clandestine nature of gynocentrism but also the reversal that the real, of god's name as well as in the spheres of gender roles. Here the assumption is also that the crown is produced by the supreme Feminine entity, just as the womb presumably functions as productive. Thought and Head are connected, a mixture of axial and pre-axial attitudes, respectively. The interpretation of the dictum is clear: the feminine entity is the first in thought and also the last in action. Here “last” refers to the end of the sefirotic realm, namely the sefirah of Malkhut. As such, it constitutes the final cause and, therefore, according to Aristotle’s theories, she would be superior to the other causes. Anyway, as to the question of male authority, it is emanated from the female hypostases as a characteristic of male power, it, therefore, continues, to be surrounded by female qualities, concepts and energies from every side while at the same time it is born of it, conditioned and thus at the end implementing its narrative and cause by being approved and the support of the feminine in the same way as a male baby is by his mother even physically in the womb. In other words, authority, in that sense, resembles, reminds, and embodies the same dynamic as masculinity itself that by default of the gynocentric nature of women and the societal expression of reality is defined by women. In other words, the origin of mundane authority is metaphysically born, conditioned, created, and is emanating from born, conditioned, relative, and emanating wisdom, especially the collective one as well as narrative, language, and speech. It functions on a two folded realm principle whereas the origin of authority gives it birth and rises and then in another two folded manner it first defines it and then through language, speech, and narrative interpret it. It is only in the middle stage or link that based on the female principle's men practice, codify, and exercise authority. Therefore, the codification and execution always occur within this none dual phenomenon where the masculine and feminine can never be separated and function alone but the feminine is the dominant force that gives rise, defines, and allows the masculine to be acted and executed in the world. This embedded gynocentric biological evolutionary and unavoidable feature within the mundane society does not mean that it leaves men devoid of (personal) choice and agency but that through the personal agency they have, men have the choice to seek to transcend this conditioning by cultivating a masculine expression that is not female-focused and conditioned. It is the none dual principle of living outside while operating within. Again, without going too much into metaphysics it is a middle path that allows (mental as well as conceptual) liberation through ultimate wisdom that is in harmony with its lower emanating types including the personal as well as collective forms without resorting into the extreme of renouncing every aspect of the material and mundane world or life. In the bottom line, we can see its workings may be ultimately taking place in the realm of laws and the legal system (which extremely prefers and favors women over men. In the legal system the written law and codification are less important but what counts is the interpretation of the written law which is always female, gynocentric, and today feminist - misandrist. Why is it so? Because codification and written law can never cover all possibilities thus you always need an interpretation that belongs to the realm of narrative which is, as I said, always female, gynocentric, and rooted in informal power. It is defined, it depends and can be implemented only through agreeing with it. The question that may arise now is whether women should participate in the power dynamics, centers, or circles of formal authority. Historical and empirical findings decisively suggest contrary to feminist myths and falsehoods that women exercised (formal) authority and participated in it on a large scale. Therefore, such a question is outdated and irrelevant. What is the relevant question? Within our changing society, it may be the correct ratio between male and female forms of authority but the more important question is how we balance correctly the power gap which is a detriment to men by balancing the formal and informal power in the light of the changing ratio whatever it might be. And this starts upon a personal reflection of both men and women, continues to a collective agreement within each respective gender and finally must end in a new social contract between men and women that will end the era of gynocentric, feminist and misandrist tyranny against men. Especially one where a tiny minority of men at the top of the formal power oppress the majority of men in the name and for the benefit of all women. And this is what needs to end. So, as we've shown the assumption of universal male dominance (authority), which stems from epistemological and ontological gynocentric biases including in anthropology, is also contradicted by historical evidence that women wield considerable power even within the context of older and ancient peasant societies, households and communities. The apparent contradictions between public stances of male dominance and the realities of female power can be resolved and explained by a model that is potentially extensible to other types of pre-industrial societies. In conclusion, the transformation of male dominance from myth to reality during the process of industrialization is briefly explored. The purpose of the next discussion is to show the larger structural dimensions of women’s power, using peasant society as an example. In essence, I will demonstrate that, although peasant males monopolize positions of authority and are shown public deference by women, thus superficially appearing to be dominant, they wield relatively little real power which reminds us and is an emanation gynocentric realities from the realm of ultimate realities and as expressed in religions which also mirrors as its secular counterparts the gynocentric matrix. As such, Gynocentrism as a social and cultural phenomenon in which women wield primary and secondary power over men by informal power that permeates and pervades the formal power hold by men, also simultaneously predominates male roles and decisions of political leadership, creates female moral authority, which is broadened by social conditioning and engineering from female informal authority over men and boys in intimate and family relationships into the formal spheres of law codification and social narrative in terms of society's acceptance of gynocentric truths, establishes female social, moral and cultural privilege and thus control personal, familial as well as the nation's wealth including property. Thus, gynocentric societies are mainly matrifocal and only slightly balanced using patrilineal and patrilocal dynamics Likewise, Gynocentrism as a social and cultural construct and subsequently by extension feminism too refers to the female domination, exploitation, and subjugation of men, both in public and private spheres, using informal power stemming first from the private spheres of intimate and family relationship and through this by female informal social networks widened to the public spheres. It is associated with a set of ideas, myths, and beliefs, a gynocentric ideology that acts to explain and justify the female dominance over men and attributes its approach to methods of using a selective interpretation of reality, implying cherry-picking of data and information and especially by maintaining a clandestine façade in which the true nature of Gynocentrism is hidden behind a large set of taboos, the denial of female to male violence, for instance, and by falsely accusing men of female oppression and subjugation under the banner of the so-called patriarchy. As we've seen, the domestic unit which relies upon the dynamics of female natural and sexual selection is the key social, cultural, political as well as an economic unit in all human societies, not only in traditional but the modern ones too. It is there that women’s power in the household takes its origins and course of actions and is widened as an extension to the wider community and from there to all political, economic, cultural, and social power structures, centers, and dynamics at large. It is expressed as female camaraderie, expressed, maintained, and spread in and through informal women’s groups. Those power structures of informal power and female solidarity are held together by a well-developed interhousehold of a female communications network as S.C. Rogers writes. This can be seen and considered as the strongest power base from which women operate in the community. Margery Wolf, Aswad, and Riegelhaupt, for instance, describe how women’s groups are more heterogeneous and less stiff than those of men and how they act as a kind of information control, heavily influencing community public opinion and mediating between groups of men. Pitt-Rivers also sees these informal processes and relationships as an infrastructure forming a part of the larger structure. According to him it springs from the network of interpersonal relations within the community and depends upon the memories and cultural traditions that he calls pueblo rather than on the written word. According to him the [formal structure] owes its existence to authority delegated by a central power which as we've seen is the informal power of women in interpersonal relationships and the domestic household tooted in them being the natural and sexual selection. The infrastructure is an aspect of structure not a segment of the community and thus as we've said it is on both levels controlled by women. The two systems are, at the same time, interdependent and in opposition, as he writes They are both parts of the same structure. If tension exists between the two, it is as much a condition of the one as of the other. So, it encapsulates the myth of male dominance stemming, being surrounded and controlled by gynocentric ethos and pathos as I have mentioned and will later explain in detail. In essence, the result and the meaning of it all are that although men dominate positions of formal authority and were historically held in high esteem by women, they only superficially were reflecting the impression to be dominant, especially in their intimate relationships with women and in the domestic household unit. In reality, as standing opposed to the myth of male dominance, men wield relatively little real power, especially in modern misandrist feminist societies. Their authority is largely powerless, often accompanied by a felt sense of powerlessness, both in the face of the world at large, as S.C. Rogers writes, and especially in intimate relationships and at home. Women not only in peasant societies but again especially in the modern one control 70% of personal and familial wealth as well as the same percentage of the nation's wealth. Therefore, women control the major portion of the most important resources and decisions – both economic, financial as well as human resources of the family. In other words, if we concentrate our investigation and widen it to all aspects regarding the female-to-male power dynamics, formal and informal, relative and absolute than women become and appear to be more powerful to men. What it means is that while women wield true and actual power, men monopolize “symbolic” power. This explains lies in the fact that it reflects a necessary division of power, namely the formal and the informal one so that the powers are balanced and harmonized to enable relationships because otherwise, they'll collapse due to the imbalance and the unwillingness of men to participate in them. Today we can see the beginning of such collapse caused by the feminist misandry which forces more and more men not only to abandon marriage but relationships with women altogether. From that point of view, Gynocentrism is a form of social arrangement of power distribution in which the female chief of staff is the head both of the domestic unit as well as the formal sphere while she exercises the true and central power is hidden more covert than overt ways, while the male head is her officer who operates its formal apparatus of authority in the front. Thus, the male is the public face while the female is the heart of the operational unit. It is a social convention in which the male head of the construct operates its formal functions of authority while giving the impression of exercising dominant power in it whereas the female directs the male behind the scene as a puppet. Also, based on our definitions of Gynocentrism, women do not have to exercise any formal authority to wield true power because male formal authority is controlled by female informal power dynamics by the virtue of the woman being a natural and sexual selection as I will explain immediately and therefore for a social system to be gynocentric it is none essential. If women would extend their informal power in the marriage to include the formal power institution in the public sphere, this would have become a matriarchal system which is the true goal of feminism. If women, also, will succeed in operating all-female power centers that exercise both interpersonal, familial, communal, social, cultural, political as well as economic and financial powers that that will be centered upon women, then the range of Gynocentrism in that system would be widened so that it becomes full matriarchy. So long as formal and informal power centers are divided between men and women that are traditional Gynocentrism, whereas if women exercise dominant power in all domains and spheres of life, that system becomes matriarchal! So, to expand the discussion on authority to deeper understand it we must bear in mind, as I have already said, that metaphysically authority springs conceptually (abstractly) from wisdom, language, speech including verbal interpretation (before codification) and is overwhelming controlled by female energies and gynocentric concepts (ethos and pathos) while it is important to understand that through conditioning beginning from early stages of infancy up to adulthood both boys and girls adopt their mother's female and thus gynocentric mindset in how and through which they perceive and interpret the world and reality. In practical terms authority springs in the world of actual forms (as standing opposed to abstract and conceptual "emptiness" aka. "pregnant void" ( which can be compared to the quantum physical principles) from the narrative and through the realm as well as at the same time the means of language and speech, both heavily colored through its gynocentric and female nature, then it is codified (thus dependent on it) and is finally implemented/exercised over the masses through the support and acceptance of the informal power (women and the gynocentric principle). Again, without going too much into a metaphysical discussion it is important to understand and differ between the ultimate, unborn - abstract wisdom and its emanation into other realms of knowledge and intelligence which are born, relative and not ultimately always true as even paradigm changes (and shifts) within science itself show. In that sense the ultimate wisdom, the abstract - unborn is eternal and primordial; other forms are born and emanate from it. The next one is the born wisdom and it is followed by various stages, level, and realms of intelligence up to the last and lower pieces in the chain of originating wisdom, intelligence, and knowledge which are bits of data and information. In this context despite the unborn wisdom there exist non dually personal as well as (conventional) collective forms of wisdom and intelligence leading to knowledge based on data and information. Not only this is the dwelling realm of the collective conventional knowledge but it is also the place where it is created. Thus, gynocentric collective - conventional knowledge and narrative are formed in the born, conditioned realm of the narrative and this is the root dimension of its origins. Despite the feminist's and the blue pill's claims, gynocentric conventional - collective wisdom is not the ultimate truth and in fact, it is wrong and falsely fabricated narrative. Anyway, authority as a characteristic of male power is surrounded by female qualities, concepts, and energies from every side while at the same time it is born of it, conditioned and thus, in the end, implementing its narrative and cause by being approved and the support of the feminine in the same way as a male baby is by his mother even physically in the womb. In other words, authority, in that sense, resembles, reminds, and embodies the same dynamic as masculinity itself that by default of the gynocentric nature of women and the societal expression of reality is defined by women. In other words, the origin of mundane authority is metaphysically born, conditioned, created, and is emanating from born, conditioned, relative, and emanating wisdom, especially the collective one as well as narrative, language, and speech. It functions on a two folded realm principle whereas the origin of authority gives it birth and rises and then in another two folded manner it first defines it and then through language, speech, and narrative interprets it. It is only in the middle stage or link and that based on female principles men practice, codify, and exercise authority. Therefore, the codification and execution always occur within this none dual phenomenon where the masculine and feminine can never be separated and function alone but the feminine is the dominant force that gives rise, defines, and allows the masculine to be acted and executed in the world. This embedded gynocentric biological evolutionary and unavoidable feature within the mundane society does not mean that it leaves men devoid of (personal) choice and agency but that through the personal agency they have, men have the choice to seek to transcend this conditioning by cultivating a masculine expression that is not female-focused and conditioned. It is the none dual principle of living outside while operating within. Again, without going too much into metaphysics it is a middle path that allows (mental as well as conceptual) liberation through ultimate wisdom that is in harmony with its lower emanating types including the personal as well as collective forms without resorting into the extreme of denouncing every aspect of the material and mundane world or life. In the bottom line, we can see its workings may be ultimately taking place in the realm of laws and the legal system (which extremely prefers and favors women over men. In the legal system the written law and codification are less important but what counts is the interpretation of the written law which is always female, gynocentric, and today feminist - misandrist. Why is it so? Because codification and written law can never cover all possibilities thus you always need an interpretation that belongs to the realm of narrative which is, as I said, always female, gynocentric, and rooted in informal power. It is defined, it depends and can be implemented only through agreeing with it. The question that may arise now is whether women should participate in the power dynamics, centers, or circles of formal authority. Historical and empirical findings decisively suggest contrary to feminist myths and falsehoods that women exercised (formal) authority and participated in it on a large scale. Therefore, such a question is outdated and irrelevant. So, W\what is the relevant question? Within our changing society, it may be the correct ratio between male and female forms of authority but the more important question is how we balance correctly the power gap which is a detriment to men by balancing the formal and informal power in the light of the changing ratio whatever it might be. And this starts upon a personal reflection of both men and women, continues to a collective agreement within each respective gender and finally must end in a new social contract between men and women that will end the era of gynocentric, feminist and misandrist tyranny against men. Especially one where a tiny minority of men at the top of the formal power oppress the majority of men in the name and for the benefit of all women. From a sociological point of view, Gynocentrism can also be understood as a social product which exploits valid gender roles rooted in natural differences between men and women in a way that affects and shifts power dynamics, structures and centers between men and women in culture and society in a way that harm men and only benefits women, elevates women to the status of Goddesses and men as their servants while enforcing this imbalance on the economical way by exploiting male work in the name of shifting economic resources from men to women. Thus, the social and cultural aspects of female-to-male imbalance of power dynamics rely upon the financial and economic exploitation of male labor. Historically, Gynocentrism has manifested itself at the evolutionary biological level and then in the social, cultural, religious. legal, political, and economic informal and formal institutions of a range of different cultures. Even, if not explicitly defined to be by their terms and laws, most contemporary societies are, not only still, in practice, gynocentric but reached the third stage of Gynocentrism that is feminism. Six overlapping structures can define Gynocentrism at that level and that take different forms in different cultures and different times: The state: In the modern feminist state, feminists haven't abandoned the traditional gender roles but shifted them from the personal level into the amorphous and impersonal level of the welfare state in which the personal man/husband of blood and flesh that was serving his wife and other female members of the family/clan has now turned into a collective husband/man, where trough the state all men have to serve all women. It is this state, especially the welfare state, that is responsible to force men by force and even state violence to refer resources from men to women. At this level, women are controlling 70% of the nation's wealth The household: being the natural and sexual selection, women are still controlling not only the familial human resources but are still controlling 70% of personal and familial wealth Violence: while women are at least equally responsible for domestic as well as sexual violence against men and according to the new paradigm are overrepresented in DV by roughly perpetrating 70% of all violence in the family as well as historically representing between 30% to 50% of all violence, this is still the greatest taboo of all that is used against men to deny them equality. Paid work and labor: First, women are not paid less, a myth that was thoroughly, but in fact, men's labor is used to transfer resources from men to women. This is why women, as stated above, are in control of 70% of personal, familial, and nation's wealth. Sexuality: first, being the natural and sexual selection, female sexuality is the main source of female informal power through which women condition men and permeates every male power in the formal sphere. It is also the source of what can be described as "Sexonomic" that is the basis of financial and economic exploitation. Popular culture and media: While women are represented either as Goddesses, as morally superior to men, wiser than men, more capable and female violence against men is praised and hailed, representation of men in media, and popular culture is "within a gynocentric gaze", where abused men are laughed at, men are demonized on daily basis, represented as buffoons, animals and sub-humans and where misandry is commonplace. Therefore, historical gynocentrism (gynocentrism 1, 2 and 3), the same as its twin brother, the metaphysical or philosophical gynocentrism including the mental cognitive one-, pre-supposes the natural superiority of women over men and sustains a system of male-on-female dependence and subordination in all aspects and spheres of life. Consequently, by the use of informal power dynamics all-male formal authority is subordinated to female control and definition, whether within the family, the society and the state, and remains remain entirely in the hands of women while male universal dominance, power, and authority constitute itself as a mythos enveloped in gynocentric ethos and pathos. So, due to gynocentrism men are deprived even of their basic legal rights and opportunities, unless they accept their status of serving women, thus gynocentric values restrict true freedom of choice, limit their flexibility, reject their freedom over themselves as well as their earned money and finances. In other words, subordination means that men are less important than women and behind the façade of the mythos male formal power or authority is subjugated to the female informal one so men have less authority and power in reality or that in reality, male authority is less powerful and that women, not men have the true power in what matters in life. We can, therefore, say that Gynocentrism is also a classification of status originated or rooted in a social convention where men are kept subordinate to women in several ways. The subordination that men experience at a daily basis, regardless of religion, race, status, and different walks of life men might belong to, takes various forms like discrimination, oppression, disregard, insult, control, exploitation, violence – within the family, at the place of work or in society. Whether, it is the discrimination and the war on boys in the educational system, lack of freedom and mobility for men and boys, husband abuse and female violence against men and boys – both in DV or sexual violence, discrimination in the legal system - male disposability and control over men and boys by women, sexual harassment of men, female control over 70% of male income and property, female control over men's bodies and sexuality, no reproductive rights for men, discrimination of men in the criminal legal system, the discrimination of fathers and divorced men in family courts, no shelters or any safety system for men in general, discrimination of men in the health system, the demonization of men, misandry and many more. So, the norms and practices that define men as inferior to women, impose controls on them, are present everywhere in our families, social relations, religion, laws, schools, textbooks, media, factories, and offices. Thus, gynocentrism is called the sum of the kind of female domination we see around men all the time. In this ideology, women are superior to men, and men are regarded as the thing of the women, as coined by Eleanor of Aquitaine, the founder of Gynocentrism, so men should be controlled by women and this produces men's subordination. Therefore, we can say that the use of the phrase subordination of men instead of the word “oppression” has distinct advantages. Subordination does not have the connotation of evil intent on the part of the dominant; it allows for the possibility of collusion between her and the subordinate. It includes the possibility of voluntary acceptance of subordinate status in exchange for some minor privileges, a condition that characterizes so much of the historical experience of men. I will use the term “gynocentric dominance” for this relation. “Subordination” encompasses other relations in addition to “gynocentric dominance” and has the additional advantage over “oppression” of being neutral as to the causes of subordination. Subordination is the situation in which one is forced to stay under the control of others and as we've seen. It is the informal power dynamic that forms the ultimate source of control and subjugation. So, men's subordination means the social situation in which men are forced to stay under the control of women. In this way to keep men under women’s control, gynocentrism runs different social customs, religious traditions and culturally enforced roles by socialization process as well as parental conditioning by the mother as well as the intimate personal engineering of her partner widen through female social networks to collective social engineering of men as a group. To preserve the female supremacy, gynocentrism created gynocentric gender roles characteristics of chivalry, where women are seen as Goddesses, men are regarded as their slaves or the thing of a woman, whereas the whole private-public realms are now colored by gendered socialization process of gynocentric domination. Conditioning, as I have shown in other researches begins even in the pre-natal state, it continues through conditioning and socialization from infancy to puberty and continued with social engineering through all the male adult life. Therefore, we can say that it is considered to take place even in the prenatal state but primarily during childhood, when boys and girls learn the appropriate behavior for their sex. All agents of socialization process such as the family, religion, the legal system, the economic system, and the political system, the educational institutions, and the media are the pillars of this gynocentric system, structure, and infrastructure which infuses the gynocentric dominance as a default raison d'etre respectively in both men and women. The use of the above terms in all the three stages is important here since it implies that Gynocentrism has an evolutionary-biological and thus a deterministic level but also on top of that a level offering the possibility of escaping it in the domain of social structure and within the help of the mental and spiritual realm with the free choice we make there. However, unless we have escaped it and are part of the matrix of gynocentric dominance, men’s work, power, authority, reproduction, sexuality, flexibility and as well as finance and as a derivative property too including other economic resources are under gynocentric female control and are subordinated or subjugated to gynocentric dominance” It is needless to say that such kind of subordination encompasses all aspects of life, religious as well as secular, and the intersections between them. Thus, I want to refer now to a power dynamic model that we can describe as the three-stages-model of gynocentric power dynamics and relations (TSM – GPDR). The TSM – GPDR is an interactive historical cognitive/epistemic model that juxtaposes and mirrors the gynocentric dynamic between the human realm of historical events and the abstract cognitive or metaphysical realm as is seen in religion, spirituality and the mutual relation between ultimate reality and human psycho cognitive base. In the human historical and material realm, it is expressed as the gynocentric three stages of historical and biological development: a) biological/evolutionary gynocentrism giving the female an in-built privileged position and advantage that is balanced through giving up some of her power while reducing the formal and balancing it with the informal one.; b) socio-cultural gynocentrism which symbolizes the attempt of reestablishing the female privileged and divine status in the human realm, and c) feminism which is taking it to extremity with and attempt to create an only female-dominated society. The same process is mirrored in the realm of religion through all esoteric, mystic Gnostic and heretical belief systems which assumes the privileged divine status as well as being the actual ruling power in the world (Shechinah) through which the male aspect of God is only mirrored which resembles the historical stage of evolutionary and biological gynocentrism that is balanced through giving up some of her power while reducing the formal and balancing it with the informal one (a) leading to the apposition of wisdom and Chochmah as part of the process of female and male dethroning of Pagan deities as for the creation of the monotheistic concept of God within the framework of keeping her essential position as the elevated part of the divine based upon giving up wisdom for the sake of faith and with the incentive to control and condition men (b) while at the last stage it aims at creating a female messianic era as it is thought by Guillaume Postel (c). Thus, we can see that historical gynocentric dynamics are mirrored and parallel those in religious realms. Indeed, we can say that religion doesn’t create gynocentrism but mirrors it's dynamic in an interactive model history and metaphysics. This control over and exploitation of areas of men’s lives mean that women benefit not only materially from gynocentrism but also in any other possible way. First, regarding materiality, women derive concrete economic gains from the subordination of men. In what we can call the “gynocentric mode of production”, men’s labor is expropriated by their wives and others who live there in many ways but in two major ones! First, it is by the virtue of the women being the natural as well as sexual selection thus both the one deciding over the household finances, running the household expenses, deciding what will be bought or what is needed or dietary for the family and second through the human resources of the family. The other route is that of the impending divorce which like a guillotine stands over the husband's head in the shadow meaning that'he'll lose everything if he isn’t complying with the wife. Needing the wife to run the house but at the same time lose everything including the house, the money, and his children in the case of divorce are what make the husband dependent on the wife and left at her mercy. Thus, husbands create the subordinated status, while wives are expropriating it. Most of the men aren't presidents or CEOs of some transnational corporation, so for the majority of men, it means that the wife is expropriating their back-breaking, endless and repetitive work while it even is not considered enough work at all and the husbands are required not to help but do 50 percent of the household chores too. Thus, 74.9% of women identified themselves as the primary shoppers for their households (Source: GFK MRI, Survey of the American Consumer, 2011); 84%of women are the sole preparer of meals in the household, with 61% stating that they prepare meals at least five times per week. The majority of these meals are not prepackaged, as 64% said they make most meals using fresh ingredients. (Source: “Today’s Primary Shopper”, Private Label Manufacturers Association); 93% of women say they have a significant influence on what financial services their family purchases, (Source: Harvard Business Review, Boston Consulting Group Survey); Women make 90% of household healthcare decisions. (Source: Yankelovich Monitor, M2W Conference). And this is only a tiny part with some small examples about the gynocentric dominance as expressed in the household merely by the fact that the woman is the natural and sexual selection. It is impossible to completely overthrow this balance unless a man goes his own way. First, because he'll need the assistance and help of his wife in the household, and once the construct is created a 50% 50% division is impossible as the wife will inevitably gravitate into this position (motherhood vs career choices). Deviation might exist but they are exactly that, exceptions that only prove the rule. And second, because it is a power dynamic that no woman will give up especially regarding kids and divorce. It is her source of controlling everything. So, that's impossible. Thus, in divorce as standing opposed to myths property and other productive resources are not only not controlled by men and passed from one man to another, usually from father to son, but the husband is losing his son as well as most property and money. The bottom line is that while men bring the most money home, it is the woman who controls and makes the decisions over it. So, there is a material basis for gynocentrism. So, even in theory if that would be possible there us an additional level to men's emancipation and a whole array of customary practices, emotional pressures, social sanctions, and sometimes, plain violence, prevent them from clearing actual control over them. In other cases, personal laws limit their rights, rather than enhance them. In all areas, they are disadvantaged. So, the material base of gynocentrism does not solely rest upon what we can describe as gynocentric sexual economics or gynocentric sexonomics of the family but its human resources with the emphasis on all the social structures that enable women to control men’s labor through the use of informal authority, power and dynamics. The ideology of gynocentric dominance aims at keeping men away from the true and actual forms of power and their centers by offering them the symbolic power of the formal system and its structures. It is attempted to be achieved through the construction of many private and public realms for women and men respectively while keeping all the informal power centers in the hands of men, giving women significant access to formal power structures and centers, something that was also historically true and is now widened even more but not giving men any footing in the informal realm. In addition to the various classification of gynocentrism, dependent on which aspect we concentrate, in that sense, social or cultural gynocentrism shows “two distinct forms of Gynocentrism – private and public Gynocentrism”. Private gynocentrism is based upon the female of her being the natural as well as sexual selection, on the one hand, and, on the other side, the control household production expenses as well as human resources which is the main female power base and thus constitute the main source of their oppression. Public gynocentrism which relies upon and takes its power from the private sphere principally concentrates and restricts itself to public sites and domains such as employment, establishment, and the state while all of them reflect and at the same time exercise the gynocentric dominance especially over men. This is the tiny majority of what we call Alpha males, the affluent men, that were conditioned by women, to monopolize those spheres of formal power and who therefore reflect the gynocentric dominance creating the political and social structures that make it possible for their economies and societies to work. They set the terms, they mediate disputes, they codify the laws and enforce them while they reflect their gynocentric conditioning and dominance they inherited in the sphere of private gynocentrism and brought it into their position of public gynocentrism. So, while those rich men formalize gynocentric power and authority and create the political context that governs how the whole society works and especially all none affluent men are oppressed for the majority of all women, the wife of those Alpha males spends the day managing her Beta male workforce and servants at home, while they undergo the same treatment from their actual wife when they're back home. This is so because being the other side of the coin, namely an inevitable and necessary force to create and sustain the material and economic realm of gynocentrism, those Beta males are the other side of the coin, the gynocentric futile Alpha Beta game, conditioned and created by women to through social engineering, only destined to do the backbreaking and life-endangering labor? Thus, generally poor men, struggling, even more, to get a foot on the ladder and pull their whole family up they are more dependent on their wives although equally exploited. For this reason, the household does not cease to be a gynocentric structure in the private sphere, but it flows back and forth to encompass all realms and spheres of life. In private gynocentrism, the expropriation of men’s labor takes place primarily by individual matriarchs within the household, while in the public form it is a more collective appropriation. In that sense, the difference on the state level between traditional societies and the modern welfare state is that in the older ones men at the public level were more exploited with the aim at transferring material resources to society as a while by maki the more dependent on their wives in the private spheres while in the modern state men are exploited financially both in terms of transferring their resources bot only for the society but also referring the resources as a collective group of men to the collective of all women not only the one at home and of course buy making the dependence on her even greater. In private gynocentrism, the principle gynocentric strategy of exploitation is exclusionary and segregated for her benefit and in the public sphere, it is pervasive and universal while in both subordinating. Above all, “the state has a systematic bias towards gynocentric interests in its policies and actions”. In this system, different kinds of violence may be used to control and subjugate men, formal and informal, female and state violence, such violence by women may even be considered legitimate and men are always routinely experienced by female and state violence. Female violence is systematically condoned and legitimated by the state's refusal to intervene against it except in exceptional instance as well as a society that celebrates it. Due to such violence including female sexual violence against men, rape of men by women, other forms of sexual abuse, DV against men, husband and child murder, and husband-beating) and the continued sense of insecurity that is instilled in men, as a result, keeps them bound and dependent to the home, their violent wives ], economically exploited and socially suppressed. In this gynocentric system, men and women behave, think, and aspire differently; women being thought to be privileged and deserving of men's protection, veneration, servitude, sacrifice (the male disposability constant - MDC) and financial support while men having been conditioned to behave like a slave to every female whim and additionally being taught to provide all this and even more and to act as a second class of human beings under the tyranny of the gynocentric chivalric gender roles. Gynocentric system show or accept that women are superior to men in all aspects of life especially morally and as a human and men being inferior so that they have to follow the gynocentric moral compass set by women – first the mother than the wife and mother in law in the realm of private gynocentrism and then female teacher and women as a collective in the private sphere of gynocentrism. As such the domestic unit is formed by a gynocentric constant and variable which moves across the axis of the house, sex and labor - paid and unpaid, internal and external - as well as the female biological evolutionary position of being the natural and sexual selection, which at the end provides the most important cornerstones of the gynocentric power bases and dynamic to establish gynocentric dominance scale (GDS) of private and public gynocentrism (PPG) by women over men with the aim at subordination, controlling and exploiting them. The gynocentric house variable (GHV) is held by parameters like female paid and unpaid work, (historically) mostly inside the domestic house unite (DHU) and sometimes outside the domestic house unite, the management of the familial resource - material and human ones, including kids and male workforce – as well as managing the aspects of daily life like house expenses, consumerism, shopping, health, familial budget. and many others. As an extenuation of the GHV (gynocentric house variable) to extend the GDS (gynocentric dominance scale) over the whole range of PPG (private and public Gynocentrism) men are exploited in a multi-layered manner while based on informal authority, power structures, and dynamics, it is simultaneously used to create the veil of taboo around the gynocentric dynamics of male exploitation. Hence, by means explained above being in the position of control of male resources, wages, finances, power, and authority while freely having chosen to keep those informal power structures and granting men the symbolic ones making the question of paid work (who's the breadwinner) none essential as to the question of being in control of that money then by dividing the results into historical aspects and the modern reality we can say and sum up that though historically women choose a more balanced approach where men were the main breadwinners and the wives the treasurer in modern society the wife earns as much as the men, sometimes even more but by still being the treasurer now she has her money, most of his money, making the imbalance even greater. Therefore, as standing opposed to the wage gap myth, women follow the same gynocentric dynamics. Most women chose to balance motherhood and career and some chose more career over motherhood but whatever they chose, these gynocentric variables and constants are leaving most of the decisions and all the control over the familial resources in their hands. Another aspect is that within the field of paid work, based on these free choices of women, occupational segregation is used by Alpha males not against women but, in fact, against beta men where they keep access to the best-paid jobs either for themselves or women and at the expense of the majority of men as what is known as the glass basement Now let's consider and explain private gynocentrism and its web of conditioning and power dynamics more in detail. From the prenatal state to birth, from birth to infancy, from infancy to puberty, a man is subjected to the conditioning of the mother – to – son power dynamic and imbalance. From puberty and into his teenage years he is subjected maybe to boyfriend – to - girlfriend power dynamic and imbalance and as he marries it's the greatest wife – to husband power dynamic which includes in wider circles also his mother and mother in law. In these centers of power, women control the most important resources as S.C. Rogers writes. They control scarce resources, they are natural and sexual selection, so they control sex, they control house finances, and expenses, merchandise, and opportunities; if affluent they manage the Beta male workforce and servants and whether they are rich or poor, they manage the human resources of the family; they also distribute material as none material good and act as the treasurer of the family controlling the husband's earnings too; they are the main buyer, purchaser and responsible for health consumption; they wield instruments of persuasion and coercion. and they exercise power through education, propaganda, directives, suggestions, rewards, and punishments while all of this constitutes as we've said the female informal power base and authority that permeates and pervades male symbolic authority. Thus, female power exists; it hangs over every man like a guillotine in a possible divorce in case he isn't cooperative and must be punished. Indeed, the life cycle of man, from birth to death, can be divided into two main phases, the private sphere of gynocentrism and the public sphere. The private gynocentrism sphere can be further divided into the nuclear family and later the marriage and the man's new family. The female power which dominates him in the nuclear family of the private's gynocentrism sphere is the female family members, first of all, his mother, grandmother, aunts, and bigger sisters. Once he has married, the outer circle of the private's gynocentrism's sphere which is first his bride, then his wife and at the end his mother in law, comes to life and is born! Either way, the conditioning begins in fact in the prenatal stage and continues from birth to infancy, from infancy to puberty and from puberty to teenage years and him becoming a grown man. As he grows most of the time the little boy and then man is being subjected to the conditioning of his mother. Other female family members play a role too. Sisters, aunts, grandmothers, and to a lesser degree at least in infancy to puberty babysitters or female kinder garden staff. A little change occurs in the schools as the mother is losing some of her control and hands it over to female teachers which means control still stays in the hands of women. Yet, in general, the biggest influence and power in these stages is that of his mother. Then, still within the realm of private gynocentrism, he passes into the territory of the girlfriend and later the bride – to - be, as exercised over him by her. This relationship and its conditioning are still soft and tender so that he feels he cannot live without her. This phase lasts from teenage years to that wedding day when the last of his potential brides finally makes herself his wife. He then passes into the domain of wife control, as exercised over him by his gynocentric matriarch, alias his darling wife. Yet, this relationship isn't anymore so soft and tender. This phase lasts till he is either divorced, widowed, or is dead, all too often by suicide as he wakes up from his delusion and ignorance to the ugly gynocentric reality. In each of those stages, still within the frame of private gynocentrism, female power is established over him through his unusual weakness in the first stages of his life. The power of his mother and other female family members is established over him while he is a helpless infant and in awe of the woman who gave him life and his own depends on her. It includes and is extended to sisters, aunts, and grandmothers. The Bride power holds with his great need for a womb in which to procreate mesmerizes him with her overwhelming feminine beauty; if he didn't feel this need, he wouldn't put himself into the power of any owner of a womb. Wife power is established over him through basically the same craving and for that reason to serve a woman while being her protector and provider too. This reality of the women being the natural as well as sexual selection and consequently the evolutionary pressure to procreate and ensure the survival of the human species, those are the basic anchors that hold him hostage to the gynocentric misery and matrix. Anyway, within the realm of private gynocentrism, the female position of being the natural as well as sexual selection alongside with her controlling the domestic sphere and the gynocentric house unit variable (GHUV) as manager and treasurer is that which forms the female power base or the informal power integral (IPI). It is fivefold in its nature and includes the following parameters: women's control of the womb meaning the access to sex and human sexual reproduction, that's her being the natural and sexual selection; upon her being the natural and sexual selection, women's control of the kitchen is the metaphor of her being the main consumer and shopper responsible for the material resource management and the family expenses which means she's the treasurer; women being the nurturer of children, that's the female managing the human resources of the family as well as ensuring that the gynocentric conditioning axis (GCA) isn't broken and the gynocentric dominance scale (GDS) continues. Those are the four conditions inherent to the woman. The last one regarding the man is his psychological naivety relative to the woman and the man's tendency to be unhinged by his excited penis. These conditions are the five elementary pillars of the female informal power; they are pivotal for its dominance over male power. Though each is recognized in popular culture and even media as jokes, their collective significance from a scientific point of view was rarely, scarcely discussed and even seldom noted. Shamefully, a discussion about those realities is considered politically incorrect and inappropriate, That's part of the clandestine nature of gynocentrism and its taboos. More importantly, "because activities in the village sphere are closely linked to the household unit", as Rogers writes, "women’s power extends beyond the sphere of private gynocentrism of the domestic house unit, although, as noted above, the (formal) village sphere is still within the male domain. For example, Rogers mentions in her research an example of the Municipal Council which is made up of nine village men, elected every six years. Immediately following elections, they choose a mayor from among themselves. Because the French government is extremely centralized, the Municipal Council is very constrained in its decision-making powers. Furthermore, all of its decisions must be approved by the prefect of the departement, who also has the power to suspend or dissolve municipal councils. A seat on the council, however, is a mark of high prestige. It is thus significant that five of the nine seats are held by farmers and at least three others by men in agriculture-related occupations (i.e., milk 742 American ethnologist inspector, farm equipment salesman). Two parties are always represented in the elections, but they represent village factions and have no ties with national parties. Their names (in 1971: d’Action Sociale, and de Renouveau et d’Entente Communale) only very vaguely suggest party policy. No platforms are offered, and what is at issue is the prestige of the candidates. As noted above, prestige accrues to families, not to individuals, so that it is to a woman’s advantage that her husband is on the council. Because of its lack of actual important decision-making powers, it is not especially in her interest to be on the council herself. Rogers also explains in this context that within a priori limits as to who may be seriously considered for a seat (i.e., no factory workers or commercants), women play a powerful role in influencing the composition of the council. A farm wife may alternatively push her husband into the political arena, or, by demanding more help from him at home and refusing to help him in his work, prevent him from entering the race. Furthermore, because of the well-organized communications network between women, they can influence public opinion and so affect the outcome of the elections. Even, women whose husbands are not running actively participate in the “fight.” Just before the 1971 elections, the wife of a factory worker spread a rumor that one of the contenders had molested her daughter. This man, a farmer, a member of an old village family, and part of the slate put up by the group who party unofficially decides before the elections who its choice for mayor will be. The position of mayor involves the highest prestige, but its incumbent must spend a great deal of time attending to administrative details in the mayor’s office, at meetings in the canton capital, and so on. There seems to be some difficulty in finding someone willing to take on the job. Women undoubtedly have a great deal of influence here. So, although most wives are willing or eager for their husbands to get a seat on the council, they are unwilling to make the sacrifices necessary for their husbands to spend so much time away from the family enterprise. The wife of one contender for a council seat said in an interview that she threatened to divorce her husband if he put himself up for mayor. Later, she said that she had only been joking, but that “really, he’s already hardly ever at home and if he were mayor, we wouldn’t have any family life left. I couldn’t stand that” (Karnoouh and Arlaud 1973). Mme. Rouyer, the wife of the former mayor, says that her husband was too busy during the eighteen years he held office. “It was no good.” But she is quick to point out (privately) that she does not control her husband the way other village wives control theirs. She is not a native of the village. The wife of the present mayor, Mme. Lajoux, complains bitterly about the fact that he spends so much time at his mayoral duties. She is German and, like Mme. Rouyer, came to the village only after her marriage. Neither woman, particularly Mme. Lajoux is fully integrated into women’s groups and so, presumably, lack support from other women and the wherewithal effectively to “control” their husbands’ activities. Now, a few words about the outward deference that women in older societies can be observed paying to men. Again, as with all of those phenomena, it is a superficial or façade paid by women and which hides the true nature of the gynocentric matrix. It does not, however, mean that women are oppressed but are rather that those are men who are subordinated to them. Carol Rogers correctly points out that "male and female spheres are very clearly defined (both in private as well as public gynocentrism), and a member of one sex group simply does not belong in the domain of the other". Furthermore, as she states, "the male sphere includes dealings with the outside world, which, of course, includes visiting outsiders. One gets a very different impression of women when they are observed in a room of men, on one hand, and with a group of women, on the other. The woman in the corner is a sharp observer; what she sees is later reported to other women amidst clicking tongues, shaking heads, or gales of laughter. In traditional societies, as Rogers writes "women are not particularly awestruck by men; despite the impression they give when publicly in their presence. If a man happens on a group of women in the street or a barn, they invariably disperse, fall silent, or change their conversation, losing their feminine ambiance. Thus, while women are non-participating observers of the male world, men have even less access to the female world. Women’s behavior, and men’s tendency to “take over” in public, prevent the latter from having access to the same amount of information women have. As she also points out "it should be noted that women are not overwhelmingly interested in male attention or concerns. In gatherings of the extended family or other mixed groups, the sexes segregate themselves, and there is a little interchange between men and women. Each prefers and feels more comfortable in, the company of his or her sex group. Thus, women wield considerable power both in the household and in the community at large. Rogers then goes on to illustrate and to demonstrate several specific examples of power processes, first in the home and then in the village. As I have explained, Rogers noted and describes the dynamics in which women are responsible for making and keeping the family budget. This includes responsibility for allocating pocket money to their husbands. She gives one example of Mme. Gabin, a factory wife, who does not give her husband any part of his paycheck, so he has to do odd jobs around the village to earn money for cigarettes and an occasional trip to the cafe. While most wives are more generous, they find nothing particularly remarkable about this behavior. Men grumble privately about their wives’ refusal to give them more money, but this is recognized as their prerogative. Furthermore, they are reluctant to complain too loudly, as that would imply that they were not fully in authority at home. “My wife,” said one farmer, “is my minister of finance.” “I’m the one who gives out the money in my house,” he added, “although sometimes I need to ask for some of it back again.” When there is a disagreement, however, it is the wife who usually wins, although the final decision is attributed to a change of heart in the husband. Rogers also correctly describes other power dynamics that she observed and is empirical proof of my elaboration in this work. In her research, she, therefore, also shows that women are responsible, of course, for child-rearing too. Farm children of both sexes work with their mothers until boys become their fathers’ assistants at adolescence. Factory wives have less contact with their children since little or no work is demanded of them at home. In both farm and factory households, children are considered important, but the households do not revolve around them, and mothers are not notably child-oriented.6 It is mothers, however, who help children with their school lessons and are responsible for day-to-day discipline and guidance. Fathers act as disciplinarians and are a quite distant myth of male dominance 741 from their children. Until recently, for instance, girl children addressed their fathers by the formal vous. A mother’s control over her children is enhanced by the father’s authoritarian position. The threat of appealing to the rather frightening authority figure in the person of “papa” is generally enough to keep the children in line when her screams and slaps fail. Major decisions about the children’s future are made in a similar way to budget decisions. In marriage arrangements, the father ideally has the final word. A young man who wants to marry a girl must first gain permission to visit her home (entrer). This is arranged through an intermediary, usually an individual related by marriage or blood to both the prospective bride and groom. Permission to entre is granted by the girl’s father and is tantamount to permission to marry. Alternatively, female informal power can also be characterized by a different classification: a) access to sex that based on biology and evolution is under female control; b) men's stupid desperation for sex that is exploited by women; based on above two predispositions, women control all the scarce material and human resources in the family which are also the most important ones. How did female informal power evolve to attain these elementary pillars so women could dominate men and their symbolic power? Female genitalia and especially the permission to access her womb is evolution's priceless gift to women or an evolutionary necessity (depending on your belief system). The relative psychological immaturity of men regarding sex is evolution's supplementary measure to ensure the survival of the species not only in producing offsprings but also later providing and protecting them. And if these natural evolutionary advantages in the favor of women were not great enough, they are the evolutionary biological base for women to annex all the material and none material human resources in the family, a position from which women can easily control and subordinate men with the male's full agreement. Of these elementary pillars, sex – the access to it and reproduction - is by far the most crucial one because from an evolutionary point of view it is of exceptional importance for the survival of the species. This is why women have a monopoly on it. And this is why it is the source and the ultimate power base for women. However, as I often said, this determinism is only valid at the biological evolutionary level. In the psychological and socio-cultural realm, men can change a lot if they begin to work on themselves and undergo a path od self-exploration as well as self-empowerment and self-realization and where they can use free will to create different conditions and agreements. Private gynocentrism is divided into two stages and two periods in a man's life. The first stage and period of life belong to his mother and in a wider extent to the other female members of the nuclear family like sisters, grandmother, and aunts; the second belongs to his wife, her sister, and mother in law. There is a middle link where he might be subjected to female babysitters, teachers, and kindergarten staff. The first has both informal and formal power and authority over him in his vulnerable infancy; however, from both, as usual, it is the informal power and authority that is most crucial. The second in his ambitious adulthood are his girlfriends and later his bride and wife. First, she exploits his nostalgia for his mother's set and manipulates his sexual craving for his future wife to be. Thus it is the triangle of mother, bride, and wife who control a man through his whole life, from birth to death. Like a kaleidoscope, it is done by a constant play between his basic needs for sex and companionship. Woman's monopoly to (the access to) sex and reproduction shifts the mating power dynamic completely in her favor of women. It reduces the man to an applicant. Since he is driven to survive through his progeny, he will pay any price to be allowed the use of a womb. He has little options. By evolutionary terms, it goes against am man's rational and goals to force a woman against her will – whether it is sex or marriage. If in theory he's done that, she can harm the baby whether by legally or illegally aborting it or by harming the baby upon birth. From an evolutionary point of view, it is therefore in his interest to yield to her terms, whatever they may be. If he must, he will conquer the whole world and lay it at a woman's feet to be allowed to marry and procreate with her. Confronted with her monopoly over the womb, the man is obliged to be her slave if that is the price she demands; and women do as chivalric gender roles and the socio-cultural gynocentrism shows. So, the same way as we have explained in the mystical tree of life as well as the God's name, the emanating reversal between the male and the female, that men's authority is largely powerless, often accompanied by a felt sense of powerlessness, both in the face of the world at large and of the peasant community itself. Connecting to the ides of the Malchut SEIFIRAH, which is the in-between link that connects the divine and the earthly, in the secular realm within the context of peasant society, women control at least the major portion of important resources and decisions. In other words, if we limit our investigation to the relative actual power of peasant men and women, eliminating for the moment those sources of power from the outside world which are beyond the reach of either peasant men or women, women appear to be generally more powerful. At the same time, the same way as in the divine realm the Crown having symbolic power, again the same way the earthly men must be understood or seen as symbolic power whereas I will argue, therefore, that the power relationship between the categories “male” and “female” is maintained in peasant society by the acting out of a “myth” of male dominance – the same way as it is acted as an allegory or myth in the celestial realm too. I assume, therefore, in all realms of reality, the myth as well as the allegory, to be the expression of a perception which may be demonstrated to be factually untrue. While it may form a significant part of the belief system of its adherents, “the truth which it expresses does not relate to the ordinary matter-of-fact world of everyday things” (Leach 1969: 107). Thus, one cannot understand the significance of a myth or allegory if it is taken to be the expression of a believed idea which defines, in a very direct or complete way, ordinary behavior. To understand its significance, a myth or allegory must be viewed in the larger behavioral, epistemological, ontological as well as an ideological context of which it is a part. The “myth” or allegory of male dominance, whether in the divine world or the earthly secular one, to which I refer is expressed, in the patterns of outwardly external deference of the female toward the male as well as their monopolization of positions of authority and prestige while the female keeps and still wields the true power. So, while in both realms the myth of male power and authority is used in a metaphorical sense, both realms, the peasant society as well as the divine spheres, are not male-dominated. Furthermore, the “myth” of male dominance in the earthly world paradoxically serves to order social relationships in a gender-reversed system emanating from the gynocentric reversal in abstract realms of reality. Thus, except for specific patterns of behavior directly linked with its expression, the “myth” of male dominance does not directly determine ordinary behavior: males do not dominate, nor do either males or females believe them to be dominant. The perpetuation of this “myth” is in the interests of both women and men, because it gives the latter the appearance of power and control over all sectors of life, while at the same time giving to the former actual power over those sectors of life in the community which may be controlled by villagers. The two sex groups, in effect, operate within partially divergent systems of perceived advantages, values, and prestige, so that the members of each group see themselves as the “winners” in respect to the other. Neither men nor women believe that the “myth” is an accurate reflection of the actual situation. However, each sex group believes (or appears to believe, so avoiding confrontation) that the opposite sex perceives the myth as reality, with the result that each is actively engaged in maintaining the illusion that males are, in fact, dominant. Thus, paradoxically, even males for instance creating charts of mystical emanation, having been imbued with gynocentric conditioning are part of the myth which makes the create this everything, not on phallocentric but gynocentric manner. It is the nature of the “myth” or allegory of male dominance and authority that neither men nor women will admit publicly that it is only a myth. Both men and women must publicly insist that men actually do the most important activities and are fully in charge. And, therefore, it n=must be acted out both on the historical as well as the metaphysical and mental cognitive levels, constitutes and variable of gynocentrism. It should, therefore, be clear that the mythical nature of male dominance is never made explicit by its perpetuators but only covertly pointed to this nature of the matrix. Despite their public deference and respect toward men, however, women are aware that men’s political and social activities are relatively trivial and their economic activities no more important than those of women. They are also aware that they have significant power in shaping their husbands’ activities and that it is most often themselves who make decisions in the home. There is some evidence that women are fully cognizant of the situation: condescending winks and smiles passed when no men are looking, As we continue to read Rogers' research we encounter another example of Mme. Rouyer’s female confidence: “Most of the wives here really control their husbands, even if it doesn’t look like it.” More oblique, “humorous” comments are sometimes made between women: “Vous savez, les hommes, c’est une drole de race,” “Men! They think they’re being such a big help and all they do is make a mess. . . Oh, they’re no good for anything! At the same time, men act publicly as if they believed the “myth.” They take the village government and other village level activities with considerable seriousness and take public implication of their lack of control over their wives and families as a slur on their manliness. It is significant that these remarks, indicating that neither men nor women believe males to be dominant, are expressed only privately, and well out of earshot of members of the opposite sex. It indicates that both sexes believe that it is important to act and speak publicly in mixed groups as if males were dominant because they assume that the other group believes it to be true. By operating in this manner, they succeed in staving off confrontation, so that the whole system of rewards and perceived advantages is not threatened. Even if men are themselves not so sure how important male activities are, they continue to act as if they are the most important because women expect them to. If men are aware that women may have more effective power than they, it is acceptable to them as long as there is no public challenge, so they may continue to think that women do not realize it. If they are given credit for running things, that is good enough. If women openly admitted that they did not believe men to be dominant, the whole delicately balanced system would break down. It is the phenomenon that I will relate to as the "Behind Closed Door Authority Reversal", one of many that occurs with gynocentrism and is one of its essential hallmarks. Women, on the other hand, buy their power by granting men authority and respect, assuming that if they allow men to believe that male dominance exists, men will not notice that women are wielding a considerable amount of power. Male behavior would lead women to believe that they have succeeded in their role. From this point of view, too, the system would collapse if women were forced to recognize publicly that men were not being taken in either.