Female supremacism, part 1 of 4
Tunia via channel A. S.
Posted on June 7, 2025
My dearest brothers and sisters,
This is Tunia speaking. I love you so very much.
This is part one of a four-part series. We'll have part two next week. Then we'll have an unrelated message from another galactic person so that we're not spending a month straight talking about this topic. Then the two weeks after that we'll have parts three and four of this series.
Why am I spending so much time talking about this topic? Well, it's because huge numbers of people still don't recognize the extent to which Earth men are being mistreated.
Men being mistreated is horrible by itself, and it also indirectly hurts everyone, plus it substantially slows down the arrival of New Earth.
Getting society to stop mistreating a group of people tends to require a whole lot of pointing to the injustice, to the point that some might find it annoying.
And yet, advocating for equal treatment is worth doing.
In part one of this female supremacism series, I will argue that your Western 2025 society is female supremacist, i.e. that it says that women are superior to men.
I'm only talking about the 2025 West. In certain other regions, this is very much not that case, and in fact in some regions women are still very much oppressed.
Of course, ultimately I'm offering one perspective out of many. I think this "the West is female supremacist" perspective has merit and is valuable, but even if I'm right about that, I'm just offering you one tool for your toolbox. You probably want to have multiple tools in your toolbox, and you probably want to have multiple perspectives that you are able to look at society with.
There are other perspectives, other tools, with which you can look at society and which may also be useful. For example, it's also true that society mistreats women in certain ways. That's another valid perspective. I haven't spent as much time talking about that because pretty much everyone already knows about it, so it wouldn't be news, but it's certainly true regardless.
Still, let me hand you this tool for your toolbox. Let me make the case why your society is female supremacist. It's actually quite straightforward.
Consider the statement: "white people are better in a dozen ways than black people. Black people are better in no way except for some purely physical things."
That is textbook white supremacism, right? After all, white supremacism is just the belief that white people are better than black people. That's the definition.
Okay, now consider the statement: "women are better in a dozen ways than men. Men are better in no way except for some purely physical things."
Okay, then this is female supremacism.
It's the exact same argument, just with "women" swapped out for "white people." Still, it's the exact same logic. So if the first statement is white supremacism, then the second statement is female supremacism.
So it's female supremacism to say that women are better in a dozen ways than men, while men are better in no way except for physical strength.
And that's literally the position that your society has.
Which means that your society is female supremacist.
Specifically, here's a list of 50 ways in which your society says women are better than men:
- women are more emotionally intelligent. Women are better at reading people. Men can be very dumb and clueless and unintentionally insensitive when it comes to dealing with other people.
- women are the more crucial parent: children need their mom more than their dad (please ignore that children of single dads have better outcomes than children of single moms)
- women communicate better
- women are better at making friends and maintaining friendships
- women have healthy, loving, supportive conversations with their friends. Men just talk about beer and breasts and sports with their male friends. Men are more often emotionally repressed because they just stupidly refuse to talk about their feelings.
- women have more common sense and make better decisions
- women are almost never violent and almost never commit sexual assault
- women are more spiritual
- women are more moral
- women are more in tune with nature and care more about protecting nature
- women select partners who are virtuous and kind and emotionally mature, while men just select for hotness
- or: women just want to find any man who is a halfway functional human being, and she often struggles with that because men just suck that much. Meanwhile men struggle with dating because they either suck so much that no woman should have to put up with them, or because they have have completely unrealistic expectations
- women are more diligent and hard-working and reliable
- adult women are almost always mature and functional human beings, whereas many technically-adult men are quite childish. One example of male childishness is men just sitting in their mom's basement playing video games (why do men do that? Because they suck, let's not ask further questions). Another example is men getting cold feet when it comes to marriage (let's not think about why men might be hesitant about marriage, they just suck).
- women are tidier
- women are the only ones willing to treat different groups as equal, while men tend to discriminate against any group that isn't them
- women are compassionate listeners, unlike men. Men only think about themselves.
- male bosses often abuse their position, either financially or sexually. Female bosses don't
- women are less materialistic and less shallow and less likely to brag or show off
- women are the partner in the relationship who is kind and functional and trying their best. If there's a relationship problem, it's likely the man's fault
- women cheat less
- women abuse their partners far less often (please ignore that statistics say otherwise). If a woman slaps her partner in public, people who see that will often just automatically assume that he had it coming. Why? Because men are awful, you see.
- women don't need men, while men do need women
- the wife is smart and the husband is dumb (see any modern tv show or movie).
- "the future is female." There's no real point to men anymore.
- women are inherently good as they are. If men try to change women then that's abuse. Meanwhile a woman trying to change her partner is perfectly fine. In fact dudes only become men once a woman civilizes them and teaches them how to be a good and functional human being. (Imagine saying that gals only become women once a man civilizes them. Suddenly it's abuse.)
- If a wife tells her husband to go sleep on the couch, he deserved it. If a husband tells his wife to go sleep on the couch, it's abuse. Why? Because women are apparently more moral than men, and automatically right.
- Men need to do certain things in order to become a "real man" or a "good man." Women don't need to do things before they're a "real woman" or a "good woman."
- it's completely acceptable to say "he worked hard for decades to support his family, he's a good man." But if you say "she cooked and cleaned for decades, she's a good woman" then everyone thinks you're a monster.
- women are more valuable. Your society says that it's good and proper that men get drafted and women don't, and that if the Titanic sinks that women get the lifeboats. Also, your society will say things like "100 people died, 30 of which were women" which clearly implies that the female deaths are the most important thing.
- women are more peaceful, and indeed world peace would be achieved if only women were in power (please ignore that Europeans medieval queens waged more wars than kings)
- all the awful things that happened historically were the fault of men.
- historically women were oppressed and men were privileged oppressors (please ignore those 14 year old boys that were forced to fight in wars, while girls and women got to stay home)
- men conspire with other men to benefit men (patriarchy, old boys' network). Women, being morally superior, would of course never do that.
- women just want to build an amazing society for everyone. Meanwhile, men often just want sex and personal wealth and personal power. Sure some individual men are good, but meanwhile women are just good, period.
- men just want sex, unlike women. Men are also led around by their genitals, unlike women.
- if a man's penis and a woman's vagina don't fit together in a satisfying way, then the problem is always that the man's penis is the wrong size, and the problem is never that the woman's vagina is the wrong size.
- small dick energy is a thing. Loose vagina energy isn't. You might get reprimanded at work for saying "he has small dick energy" but you probably won't get fired. But if you say at work that a woman has "loose vagina energy" then you may very well get fired on the spot.
- everything that's wrong is men's fault. Women meanwhile are the positive force in society and are always wonderful just as they are.
- if there is relationship discord, it's the man who needs to change something. Wife unhappy? Husband needs to change. Husband unhappy? Husband needs to change. Man can't find a wife? He sucks and he needs to improve. Woman can't find a husband? Men suck and men need to improve.
- if a man says that his wife left him, people assume that she was right to leave him and that he was either abusive or just a loser. If a woman says her husband left her, people don't assume that she was abusive or a loser. (Even though a recent message by Hakann provided several sources indicating that women commit domestic abuse more often than men do.)
- toxic masculinity exists while toxic femininity doesn't exist (or almost doesn't exist)
- positive generalizations about women, and negative generalizations about men, are "duh, of course." Meanwhile negative generalizations about women, or positive generalizations about men, are horrendous sexism that we can't possibly tolerate.
- if a woman just exists and isn't horrible, she's automatically a great partner and any man would be lucky to have her. Meanwhile men need to do or have a list of things or qualities before they're even worth being in a relationship with.
- women are so inherently wonderful that if the man is the sole breadwinner and there are no children, the woman is assumed to be a net positive in his life. Meanwhile if the woman is the sole breadwinner and there are no children, then the man is assumed to be a liability to her. Even people who claim to be in favor of equality and who reject traditional gender roles will often look at it like this.
- if women underperform in a certain way, then by definition there must be oppression and sexism, and together we must systemically help women. If men underperform, that's proof that either men are inherently worse than women in that area, or men just make stupid decisions and they should pull themselves up via their own bootstraps. Certainly there's no need to help men.
- men should have accountability, but not authority (which is an awful position to be in: it's your fault if things go wrong, and also you have no say)
- women should have authority, but not accountability (which is a very luxurious and potentially destructive position to have). Admittedly your society doesn't literally say this, but your society has women-only quotas and also refuses to hold women accountable, so this is effectively the position of your society.
- Women are so wonderful that if they do something, it's fine, whereas if the man does the same thing it's horrible. For example: if a woman doesn't talk to her partner for a while, then either he deserved it, or she just needs some time to process things and in fact she's a responsible person for gathering her thoughts first. Meanwhile if a man doesn't talk to his partner for a while, then that's emotional abuse.
- if a husband is mean or selfish let's say three times, that could be labeled as emotional abuse or narcissism, and some people would advise the wife to leave the relationship immediately. Whereas if a wife is mean or selfish let's say three times, then that's not emotional abuse or narcissism. Either the husband is told "sometimes people are mean, that's just part of life." Or he's told to have a very careful conversation with her.
So, that's a list of 50 ways in which your female supremacist society says women are better than men.
Maybe you disagree with some points and you think that there are actually only 40 or perhaps even only 30 ways in which your society says that women are superior to men.
Well, that doesn't change the overall point that your society clearly says that women are better than men. Even if it only says that in 30 ways and not 50.
Meanwhile, if you say that men in general are better than women at anything except physical strength, then your society calls you a sexist and a misogynist.
Okay, so then your society is female supremacist.
Let's debunk some possible counterarguments.
Counterargument one: "Our society actually says that men and women are equally good at everything."
Yes it says that, and it also says that women are better in 50 (or 30) ways. It's double-think.
Do you really not recognize any of the "women are better" statements on the previous list?
Imagine if someone said: "I believe that white and black people are equal. And I also believe that white people are better than black people in 50 (or 30) ways." That person is still a white supremacist, right?
Counterargument two: "But everyone agrees that men can be good, and great men are celebrated."
Yes, but your society says that women are better in general and men are kind of bad in general, and it's only specific men who are good. That's still female supremacism.
Imagine if a person said: "oh I'm not a white supremacist, I just think that whites in general are better than black people in 30 ways, while black people in general are better at only some physical things. But, you know, black people CAN be good. SOME black people are good. In fact, I know some black people who are fine and capable people. I know some blacks who are good people." Then that person speaking is clearly a white supremacist.
So if your society says "I'm not a female supremacist. I just believe that women in general are better in a dozen ways while men in general are better at nothing. But, you know, men can be good. In fact I know some men who are good men." Well, that is female supremacism.
Counterargument three: "Supremacism doesn't just mean thinking one group is better, it also means treating one group better than the other."
Well your society does that too, for example via courts giving harsher sentences to men for the same crimes compared to women. Divorce court discriminates against men. Wales gives 77 times as much money to women's groups even though four out of five people who kill themselves are men. There's research showing that teachers give higher grades to girls for the same work. There are female-only scholarships while already more women attend university. Et cetera. Previous channelings have given lots of examples and have provided sources.
More women than men own homes in the US. More women than men attend university. Women live longer lives. Women are far less likely to end their own lives. Women are far less likely to die in a workplace accident. Most awful, hard, dirty, low-status, dangerous work is done by men.
Yes there are more male CEOs, but women often simply choose not to work 70 hours per week and be under a lot of stress and pressure all the time. So if that's the choice that women make (and fair enough, I'd make the same choice) then of course there are going to be fewer female CEOs, and fewer female billionaires.
Moreover, the fact that more billionaires are men really doesn't do anything to help the average guy on the street.
Counterargument four: "a society is only supremacist if it says (or clearly implies) that one group is better than the other."
Your society does that too. Even elected officials sometimes openly say (or clearly imply) that men are inferior, that men are the problem and that women in power would solve society's problems.
The same is said (or clearly implied) by your media. By your movies. By your tv shows. By your education system. By your universities.
Courts giving custody of children to mothers over fathers, except in extreme cases, also implicitly communicates that women are just better than men.
Women-only scholarships existing while already more women attend university, pretty clearly implies that your society thinks that women are just better than men. (And it also shows that male billionaires and male politicians really aren't doing anything to help average guys.)
And if you want to argue that "female-only scholarships are just a way to achieve equality in STEM": okay, then where are the men's-only scholarships for studying psychology?
Counterargument five: "yes female victims are helped more, but men get respected more as people who act upon the world."
But is that actually true? Maybe at one time it was. But nowadays men get discriminated against during hiring processes, with some companies just refusing to hire (white) men. For example, see the first 30 seconds of:
If a man is broke then he's a loser, and if a man is rich then he's an oppressor.
A male CEO is an evil capitalist leech. A female CEO is a boss babe, you go girl, yasss queen, you're an inspiration to us all.
Then is an average man respected? Well, if an average man starts a family and has a job and provides and does everything he's supposed to do... then he's Homer Simpson and still a loser.
Just look how much respect hard-working fathers get in modern movies and tv shows.
Hard-working well-meaning fathers get destroyed in divorce court every single day, and the vast majority of divorces are initiated by women, and usually there's no abuse or cheating going on.
Counterargument six: "this can't be a female supremacist society because women aren't doing great in current society."
It's true that women aren't doing great in current society. However, the relatively privileged group doing well is not a requirement for supremacism.
Certain European colonial nations were white supremacist at certain periods in the past. Namely, they openly said that white people were superior to black people. And note that white average working-class people in those white supremacist societies usually weren't having a great time, and didn't really have any power. Even though they were white in a white supremacist society.
A white supremacist society just means that the society says that white people are better in certain ways. That's it. There's no requirement that white people are thriving.
Similarly, certain non-European nations were supremacist too, thinking their people are superior to other people. Yet, the average peasant or soldier in that society didn't have a luxurious time either, and didn't really have any power or say.
Returning to your current society: it's female supremacist, and that's not disproven by the fact that women often aren't having a great time.
In fact, women often aren't having a great time because your society is female supremacist.
Female supremacism hurts women too.
Namely: awful men are still going to be awful in female supremacist society. Whereas good men often just get crushed by female supremacist society and therefore they don't contribute as much as they would otherwise. And good men being crushed makes everyone worse off, including women.
Counterargument seven: "this can't be a female supremacist society because look at how many women get raped."
Obviously women being raped is absolutely horrible and completely unacceptable, and happens way too often.
But as with the previous point, women often not having a great time doesn't disprove that you live in a female supremacist society.
If in a white supremacist society certain individual black people horribly hurt certain individual white people, then that doesn't disprove that it's a white supremacist society. (And obviously, I'm not saying that that mistreatment is justified.)
Also, something that points towards female supremacism is that everyone will immediately agree that women being raped is horrible. (And obviously, it is.)
Whereas legally speaking in England, rape has to involve penetration by a penis. So in England, if a woman clearly rapes a man, then legally speaking that's not rape.
So yes, certain individual men horribly mistreat women. But on a societal level, everyone agrees that women getting raped is awful. Whereas England doesn't even care about men enough to define rape in such a way that it recognizes female rape of men.
In the US, more men than women are raped if you count prison rape. And still, prison rape is treated as a joke.
A teenage boy being raped by an adult woman? Also a joke. People might say "nice" or "lucky guy."
How am I supposed to describe this as something other than female supremacism?
Yes, certain individual men are awful. But as least on a systemic level everyone agrees that women being raped is awful, while on a systemic level men being raped may not even be legally recognized, or it's treated as a punchline.
And yes, most rapists are men. But that doesn't justify mocking men who are raped, or telling all men that they're bad. Black people in the US also commit disproportionally many crimes -- does that mean we should also tell all black people that they're bad?
Counterargument eight: "Most people in power are men."
Yes, but note that pretty much all of those men are female supremacists, or they're collaborators with female supremacists.
How many men in positions of power are actively trying to make it so that women get equal punishment for the same crime as men, for example? Practically zero, right?
How many men in positions of power are actively trying to ban women's scholarships, because it's sexist and because already more women attend university nowadays? Practically zero, right?
How many English men in positions of power are actively trying to change the definition of rape? Very few, right? I'm not just talking about lip service and mentioning it once or twice, I'm talking about actively trying to change this.
Men can be female supremacists too.
Now, a woman in power would most likely fight anti-female discrimination if it exists (and fair enough). Some women in power even push for unfair anti-male discrimination. As a result, women often assume that if most people in power are men, then men must have equal rights, or must be privileged.
But men aren't women. Women are biased in favor of women. And men... are also biased in favor of women.
More men are promoting anti-male discrimination than are trying to, for example, make it so that women get equal punishment for the same crime.
So: yes most people in power are men, but they're female supremacists or female supremacist collaborators.
Frankly, almost all men in power are uncle Toms.
That's all the counterarguments I could think of.
So, I rest my case that your society is, in fact, female supremacist.
I get that "female supremacism" might sound shocking and extreme, but frankly, the situation on Earth is shocking and extreme.
I imagine you're used to the gender situation on Earth and therefore it feels familiar and normal to you. And you're not used to the term "female supremacism" and therefore that might feel shocking.
But I suspect that if you think things through logically, you may agree with me.
As an illustration:
The statement "he's following his dick" probably sounds somewhat normal to you, and at least as being somewhat acceptable to say if a man is pursuing a hot but unstable woman. Most people wouldn't push back against someone saying that.
Meanwhile "she's following her vagina" is a statement that likely sounds a bit shocking to you, and something that's not acceptable to say, even if a woman is pursuing a hot but unstable man. Most people would push back against someone saying that.
But why is "he's following his dick" fine to say, but "she's following her vagina" isn't?
This illustrates that how a statement sounds to you, and how it makes you feel, and whether it's shocking or not, may not be a good indicator of whether that statement is valid.
Us galactics think that systemic mistreatment of men is as bad as systemic mistreatment of women. I know Earth people may also make that claim, but usually Earth people don't really think like that. We, however, do. And frankly we're horrified when we look at Earth.
Let's imagine the gender-flipped situation of your world for a moment. Imagine if on your world women got harsher punishments for the same crime, got lower grades for the same work in school, almost never got the kids in a divorce, usually had to pay lots of money to men in a divorce, were told from birth that they were the problem in society while men were wonderful, four out of five people ending their lives were women, almost all workplace deaths were women, etc.
Then obviously you'd want us to speak out against that, repeatedly, in strong language, right?
Well, here you go.
As for how society became female supremacist: that's a very complex topic, but one part of it is that women repeatedly got hurt (starting a very long time ago and continuing up to the present).
Women understandably want to feel safe, and are often resentful towards men because men are supposed to protect and provide, hence a lot of women want what amounts to female supremacism in practice, in order to feel safe and provided for.
I know women don't consciously think "I want female supremacism."
However, conscious minds are to a large extent rationalization machines that tie a pretty bow on what people decide subconsciously and emotionally.
And also, if you take actions that clearly lead to a certain outcome, then you're sort of pushing towards that outcome even if you don't consciously aim for that outcome. For example, if someone cheats on their husband or wife in order to feel good, then they're taking actions that lead to the end of their marriage, even if they never intended that and they only intended to have some fun or excitement.
Similarly, eating a lot of junkfood is an action that will lead to the result of getting fat, even if getting fat was never the goal and the goal was just feeling better in the moment.
So the actions that women are taking are leading to female supremacism, even though women's goal isn't female supremacism. They're just trying to feel safe. But still, actions lead to certain results.
So, women were hurt and wanted to feel safe.
Meanwhile, hurt women stopped giving love to men -- one of the female gender's contributions -- and so men started supporting female supremacism in the hope that that's how women would give them love again.
So men need to feel loved, and that's non-negotiable, and so they support what is in practice female supremacism. Because they think that's the only way they'll get their love needs met. And people who don't have critical needs met might support destructive things, such as female supremacy.
And women need to feel safe, and that's non-negotiable, and so they support what is in practice female supremacism. Because they think that's the only way they'll get their safety needs met. And people who don't have critical needs met might support destructive things, such as female supremacy.
This is also why it seems that Earth women often don't take responsibility, and often aren't compassionate towards average men or even understanding what life is like for average men. That's really not something that's inherent to women (and indeed, many Earth women don't behave like that). Rather, that's how some people behave if they feel very unsafe. And a whole lot of women feel very unsafe.
Men generally don't understand just how unsafe Earth women feel, and creating an environment where women feel safe is ultimately in large part the man's responsibility. Which they're currently failing to do.
On the other hand, mistreating men really isn't the solution to this. It only makes things worse:
Rapist men are still going to rape. Psychopathic men are still going to behave psychopathically. Really all that you accomplish by mistreating men is that the good men get crushed and then don't contribute to society. Which hurts everybody.
So, how to break this cycle?
Either men make sure that all women are safe and provided for -- which will involve, among other things, arresting the dark controllers. But of course, even one average individual man can make a contribution towards this goal.
Or women start behaving in a loving way towards men -- not just go "oh yes I love everyone" but actually act in a loving way towards men. Which, in the current context, would involve women marching in the street for men's rights, or at the very least publicly speaking up for men's rights.
And if both genders wait for the other gender to do their part first, then nothing will get done.
That's my view on Earth.
I'm curious what you're thinking and how you're feeling. Feel free to share in the comment section.
With all my love,
Your star sister,
My notes: - God the Source is unconditional love, not a zealous god of [some] dogmatic religions.
- All articles are the responsibility of the respective authors.
- My personal opinion: Nobody is more Anti-Semite than the Zionists.
Reminder discernment is recommendedfrom the heart, not from the mind The Truth Within Us, Will Set Us Free. We Are ONE.No Need of Dogmatic Religions, Political Parties, and Dogmatic Science, linked to a Dark Cabal that Divides to Reign.Any investigation of a Genuine TRUTH will confirm IT. TRUTH need no protection. Question: Why the (fanatics) Zionists are so afraid of any Holocaust investigations?
- God the Source is unconditional love, not a zealous god of [some] dogmatic religions.
- All articles are the responsibility of the respective authors.
- My personal opinion: Nobody is more Anti-Semite than the Zionists.
No comments:
Post a Comment