In light of the recent awakening of men who now truly understand the nature of women, I want to take the time to talk about my own discoveries, and how men and women represent the Universal Principles. Additionally I believe that my final conclusion is something better than both sides of the modern cultural coin.
I can say that above all else, it is most difficult for me not to see women in a negative light. However I can say that without a doubt, after many years of searching out the most rare of females, interacting with them, loving and hating them, that they are not human. I do not say this with impunity, with malice, or with revenge. I say this with complete objectivity. Whatever I say will use the Christian texts as references but really any esoteric or religious text will agree with me.
Man is the image of God. This is a simple fact of this dimension. I will not prove this, only that if you do not understand this fact first, you will understand nothing. Woman is not the image of God, but the shadow of Man.
"21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. 22 Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. 23 And Adam said:
“This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”
Genesis Chapter 2
The Universe comprises of two parts. Plato calls them form and essence. Structure and Potential. Force and Energy. The infinite of these two in perfect alignment and harmony is what we know as God, or as I like to say, Singularity. In Singularity is the Infinitum of Creation, that is, all that every was or will be, without the limiter of time.
Man is the 3-dimensional manifestation of this creative principle. That is, human. But because man is not infinite, and is bound by dimension, limited by time, he needs a being of greater void essence (potential, femme) to conquer, in order to elevate beyond his current limitations. The woman is the catalyst by which man, the image of God, falls, and yet overcomes and is brought to redemption.
Innumerable texts, mythos, stories, and legends express this cycle. The knight diving into the depths of the pit to slay the dragon, and retrieving the prize of gold. The man who jumps into the abyss to conquer that which is unknown, and to extract the valuable item which may be used to redeem his people. To plunge into his own darkness, slay his shadow, and be reborn a new man, a better man.
This is expressed as sexual intercourse as well. The man (order, structure, humankind), dominates and penetrate the void of pure potential, the woman, and extracting a new being, a child, of even greater potential, who shall do the same in time.
Therefore from these principles we around at the conclusion that the Woman is the object of possibility, a Vessel. That within Woman is the potential of incredible goodness or incredible evil. The woman without order, domination, and structure, is an agent of Chaos. The woman who is controlled under those things is an agent of Righteousness.
To be human is to rise, to elevate, to ascend, to seek harmony to see greater dimension. That is, to become like God. Womankind does not seek this. Mankind does. But Womankind can be the catalyst to rise, or for downfall. And because we are lower beings, we unfortunately have experienced the latter purely by inevitability. But in the next life, we will conquer this shadow-work, and all will draw closer to Singularity, to God.
So concerning woman: No, they are not human, they are the vessel for humanity, and they are whatever we allow them to be, or make them to be.
You can dive further into this with Otto Weininger's "Sex and Character" book:
"Sex and Character argues that all people are composed of a mixture of male and female substance, and attempts to support this view scientifically. The male aspect is active, productive, conscious and moral/logical, while the female aspect is passive, unproductive, unconscious and amoral/alogical. Weininger argues that emancipation is only possible for the 'masculine woman', for example some lesbians, and that the female life is consumed with the sexual function, both with the act, as a prostitute, and the product, as a mother.[10] The woman is a "matchmaker". By contrast, the duty of the male, or the masculine aspect of personality, is to strive to become a genius and to forgo sexuality for an abstract love of the absolute, God, which he finds within himself." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Weininger
This post is largely abrahamic despite its appeals to non-abrahamic sources. In ancient (pre-christian) Norse societies women had a much greater role than just cattle to be conquered. They were the managers of the household while the men were gone on raids. They were able to get divorced simply by declaration. They were able to own land. The roles you ascribe to women are likely for an intersectionality of women that is largely of a foreign people (often semitic as is conducive to the religion of Christianity's roots). If you understand different peoples as capable of different intellectual capacities then it becomes clear that within indo-european women it is indeed possible for them to reach the status of humanity that you define. They can be thinking beings of a high enough sentience to warrant respect. That being said, this is not the default. We have long filtered for, and brainwashed for intellectual garbage and a near complete lack of standards amongst this sex. That must be remediated. The majority of women of all sorts, likely meet your distinctions, but I would argue the stashettes here of the two who have revealed themselves and I have interacted with (@artemis and @AilliA), are capable enough to warrant further consideration. I agree with your general sentiment, but to the extent that it results in the wholly indiscriminate dismissal of ALL of the members of that sex, I think it is slightly overly-broad.
I think in order to properly assess the status of humanity of women in a comparative sense, you must also examine the status of humanity of men of other races and intellectual capabilities.
If you want to get real particular about it, it's like the grip strength test.
Overall, I'm in near complete agreement with you, but I wouldn't want this type of exploration to result in the elimination of an Ayn Rand type woman, who was undoubtedly influential in a positive sense, broadly.
You're speaking in associations rather than abstractions and spectrums, which is a common misconception, and what i assumed I'd have to face, as always when i talk about these things. Frankly I really dont care about exceptions to the rules, as of course "exception to the rule merely prove the rule", and are otherwise irrelevant. Exceptions are the result of spectrums, and help us understand them, but do not disprove them in the slightest. So of course in a lower dimensional context, women will exhibit human traits rather than vessel traits in some outlying cases. Which is why I included Weininger's book at the end. I never claimed ALL, and spending all this energy to plead that "not all women" is such a midwit 105IQ response, very sad. Obviously i speak in generalizations. And yes Ayn Rand was an incredible woman that I deeply respect, her book Atlas Shrugged is genuinely the only path to saving this world.
btw AilliA is not a woman lmfao its a dude larping.