After Women Took off Their Aprons, Advertisers Began Taking Off the Rest!

fem 17Once we won our equal liberty to choose our personal “place” in the world, the male ego swiftly began to make sure that women would never forget their universal “purpose” in the world.

By T.L.Dayen

They say “a picture paints a thousand words.” Imagery has the power to elicit emotion and provoke thought. It can also be used to subconsciously persuade or manipulate. Imagery has also historically been used to disseminate propaganda such as the iconic “Rosie the Riveter;” an animated image of a strong-armed woman in a factory uniform intended to convey that it was acceptable to see women; the majority of the domestic work force during the war effort of WWII, as strong and capable. Images can also portray social behavioral norms like iconic Norman Rockwell fem 15paintings depicting ‘normal’ life in middle and working class America from the early to mid 20th century. Culturally, our social norms are reflected through imagery in our media; movies (entertainment mostly) and advertising (expressly to persuade).

Imagery in advertising works to convince, confirm or inform viewers about what they should want, think, identify with or accept as good for them. When advertisers use sexually implicit images to sell a product, it is reaffirming stereotypes that objectify women’s bodies and marginalize their humanity.

Selling Sex

Exploiting sexuality to sell a product is, unfortunately, effective. The ‘sex kitten’ eating Doritos on T.V. prompts the dorritosman to buy the chips because he wants to “get the girl” in the ad, and the woman buys the chips because she wants to “be the girl” in the ad; “We’re a visually explicit culture that’s become comfortable with selling domain names and winter coats on the backs of pretty, naked people” (Thompson, 2011).

Using sex in advertising subliminally links our most primal motive of procreation to the impulse desire for that product/service. In other words, buy the product, get (feel) the sex.

Sell Sex; Buy Sexism

The problem with ‘selling sex’ is that it takes the elemental human drive to procreate (which requires dominant and pliant roles), and attaches it to everything in our lives from food to cars to clothing to cleaning products to insurance. fem 14The dominant/ pliant roles of our sex organs become the roles we identify with as represented subliminally by the products and services we need and use every day. By ascribing the yielding female sex organ to her overall nature and character (as subordinate), advertisers can use sexually explicit imagery to not only potently objectify women’s bodies, but also marginalize female humanity by transforming “actual women into [sexual] objects, devoid of individual will or subjectivity” (Benshoff and Griffin 238-256).

The female body, pliant in sex, becomes the objectified woman, subordinate in life.

Even while women have made stellar strides in education and work force parity since the blatantly sexist advertising of the 1950’s; “an era when women’s roles were confined to the corridor between the bedroom and the kitchen” (Thompson, 2011);

the ‘new sexism’ is simply explicitly sexist imagery without the explicitly sexist messaging. In the 21st century, the message of sexual servitude is “implied.”

“Having lost the argument that women are incompetent, American advertising has had to settle on the argument that fem 18women are [still] attractive” (Thompson, 2011). In other words the iconic domestic dependent ‘June Cleaver’ telling viewers something like, “Your husband will never complain about undercooked eggs again with this new and improved egg timer!” has been replaced with the sexually implicit ‘cleavage and stilettoes’ seductively and silently stepping out of a Lincoln Continental. I call this “objectified female imagery.” This more modern version of sexism has only fed new life into age old social constructs of female subordination, because “American women still develop a sense of self-worth based primarily on how they look, rather than how talented or intelligent they are” (Benshoff and Griffin 238-256).

Domestic dependent submissiveness has simply been replaced by sexual objectification; both are demeaning and subordinate positions of “service.”

What’s even more poignant is that some of worst offenders of this type of sexist advertising are ‘women on women.’ fem 19Women who appeared on a Phil Donahue Show “fashion segment,” un-apologetically defended their unusual preoccupation with ‘perfecting’ their hair, skin, eyes, clothing and bodies. Susan Bordo took note of their naiveté and that “putting on makeup, styling hair, and so forth are conceived of only as free play, fun, a matter of creative expression,” but in reality is, “also experienced by many women as ‘necessary’ before they show themselves to the world, even a quick trip to the corner mailbox.” Bordo expresses her concern that the true messages being sent by ‘fashion statements’ are merely “whimsical and politically neutral vicissitudes [that] supply endless amusement for women’s [apparent] eternally superficial values.” Bordo goes on to say in the context of the fashion and beauty industry, “the specific ideals that women are drawn to embody…are seen as arbitrary, without meaning [by society].”

In other words, obsession with fashion culturally indicates frivolous and superficial priorities.

Bordo’s trepidation with the multi-million dollar fashion and beauty industry is shared by Benshoff and Griffen who assert that this advertising strives to persuade women to “buy their [own] femininity;” be re-made into “some ideal fem 20form” as an “object of the male gaze (objectification).” This, alleges Benshoff and Griffen, actually convinces women “to be complicit in their own objectification.” A massive and still growing fashion and beauty industry in America may be evidence that many women have indeed “internalized the ideology that their self-worth is based upon their public image… that achieving total objectified desirability is the only thing that will give them happiness and fulfillment” and that, “this mythical ideal keeps patriarchal (male) domination in place” (Benshoff and Griffin 238-256). If women are buying sexism, then apparently sexist advertising is working.

Hijacked Sexuality

Full disclosure: as a woman myself, I am frustrated that an industry has “hijacked” my God given sexuality for their profits! Can a woman in the 21st century fully express her innate sexuality without the implication that she is consenting to, even encouraging the sexist messages sent by the objectified female imagery in media advertising? And what of those who feed into the ‘cultural messages’ that are fabricated from objectified female imagery in the media; that a woman’s sexuality is by its very nature literally “there for the taking?”fem 5

Can a woman in the 21st century fully express her innate sexuality personally without the implication that she is “asking for it” publically? I fear that the answer to these questions today is “no.”

Sharon Marcus writes of the misleading dialogue used when legislating rape laws or hearing rape cases; “The rape script describes female bodies as vulnerable, violable, penetrable, and wounded.” A website called “Controltonight.com” ran an ad showing a young woman’s legs with her panties around her ankles lying on what looks like a bathroom floor. The ad reads, “2:19 a.m. She didn’t want to do it, but she couldn’t say NO.” The ad intends to warn against drinking and date rape, but the ‘message’ is that women’s bodies are simply up for grabs by anyone who may gain the advantage to take it – and that’s somehow a woman’s fault. Marcus purports, “the adherents of rape culture see female sexuality as a property which only men can truly own, which women often hoard, which can thus justifiably be wrested from us, which women themselves merely hold in trust for a lawful owner. Rape thus becomes the theft or violation of one man’s property rights by another.”

fem 8If women’s sexuality is not even seen in our law as our own rightful possession, it is no wonder it could be unabashedly exploited personally or commercially by whomever and however it serves to benefit.

Audrey Lorde writes of the uses and power of the ‘erotic’ – in this context, ones ‘passions;’ sexual or otherwise; “We have been taught to suspect this resource, vilified, abused and devalued within western society… the erotic has been encouraged as a sign of female inferiority.” So a woman’s capacity to “feel deeply” has been equated with weakness, and that “only by the suppression of the erotic within our lives and consciousness can women truly be strong. But this strength is illusory, for it is fashioned within the context of male models of power” (Lorde 188-192).

If we follow Lordes’ premise, then a woman’s capacity to feel her own sexuality is considered “suspect” and therefore only passably expressed within and through our patriarchal society’s consent and capacity to control it.


What came first, female objectification or female objectified imagery? The truth is not what you might think. While media imagery only began in the early 1900’s, female objectification is just one arm of female subordination that has fem 12stigmatized the male/female dynamic for thousands of years. However, in the 21st century human kind is capable of growing beyond our prejudices; capable of a much broader perspective of the male/female dynamic.

In the 21st century human kind is capable of recognizing our two species as ‘different in measure but equal in value.’

This is where the media continues to culturally perpetuate female objectification even as we are collectively capable of moving beyond it. Advertising media imagery is especially harmful because it is scrupulously knitted within the fabric of our consumer based culture. Every decade that passes, fem 4human kind becomes more familiar with women in leadership positions of authority in politics, more acceding to our dependability as an equal successful womanpartner within the home, and more reliant on our equally competent skills in the work place and industry. While this reality of the male/female dynamic may smack of truth, the false postulation of our disparity and subordination continues to be culturally projected before us as sexually objectified minions of the patriarchal social construct.

Women’s sexuality; our very autonomy is reduced to a collective cultural commodity, and only valid through its collective cultural usefulness to the patriarchal bedroom, boardroom or billboard.

If sex is selling, it’s only selling women out.

fem 16



Benshoff, Harry, and Sean Griffin. America On Film. 2nd. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.

238-256. Print.

Bordo, Susan. “Material Girl: The Effacements of Post Modern Culture.” Trans. Array

Theorizing Feminisms. N.Y., New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. 385-404. Print.

Lorde, Audre. “Uses of the Erotic: The Erotic as Power.” Trans. Array Theorizing Feminisms.

N.Y., New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. 188-192. Print.

Marcus, Sharon. “Fighting Bodies, Fighting Words: A Theory and Politics of Rape Prevention.”

Trans. Array Theorizing Feminism. N.Y., New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. 369-

  1. Print. (Marcus, 369-381)

Thompson, Derek. “Are T.V. Ads Getting More Sexist?.” The Atlantic. The Atlantic Monthly

Group, 31 Oct 2011. Web. 16 Oct 2013. <theatlantic.com>.



Female Servitude and Oppression


From Part I Chapter 1  The Stark Reality of Female Oppression

By Shane Stewart

Men have fought many violent and destructive battles to free their brothers from the oppression and domination of tyrannical despots, and they consider the struggle for the right to live in freedom to be an admirable one.  Men consider the cause of struggling for freedom justifies the violence it produces, and men who kill for such a just cause are praised as being selfless, heroic, freedom fighters.

Civilized societies renounce the practice of enslavement as an archaic, unconscionable, and repulsive human injustice.  Most governments have come to outlaw the enslavement of men by other men, and forbid discrimination based on race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, and so on.  The primitive and barbaric practice of slavery has all but been eradicated from the ranks of the male of our species.  This all sounds quite noble.  Men tend to display their positive image when talking about equality and freedom.  They love to speak in idealistic terms putting forth such statements as; “We find these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal;” and, “All men have an inherent and unalienable right to self-determination.”  But these are merely empty words.  The selfless and heroic struggle for human freedom and equality that men so proudly proclaim does not exist.  It is a fallacy, an empty fantasy; just fancy rhetoric.  Men have never truly struggled for liberty and justice for all.  Their struggle is far from universal.  When men proclaim that “all men” have the right to be free, they are saying exactly what they mean.  They mean freedom for “men;” for those humans who share in the “brotherhood” of man; for those humans who possess the penis; overwhelmingly, men who are only concerned with freedom, equality, and independence for themselves.  These men do not extend the principle of human freedom to women, and these men will never struggle for the freedom of women because they are the very tyrants of female oppression.

Women constitute over half the population of our species, yet they are caste into a life of oppression and servitude.  Not being men, women are not considered to be independently viable human beings.  Rather, they are considered a dependent extension of men.  Therefore, women have no independent right to human freedom and equality that is naturally bestowed upon the independent male of our species.  Women have nowhere to turn for relief from servitude because female oppression is a socially constructed practice and encouraged in all societies of the world.  From the smallest of tribal groups living in the most remote regions on earth, to the massive populations that occupy the largest cities, the world’s cultural fabric is sewn together by the common thread of female oppression, servitude, and exploitation.  The fact that men continue to confine more than half the human race within the restrictions of oppression and servitude, exposes the concept of human equality as a mere facade behind which there is no substance.

Men employ various tactics designed to convince women that their purpose on earth is to be of service to the superior male.  One very successful tactic involves the use of unsubstantiated myths, legends, traditions, and out-right lies that have been passed down through multiple generations that support the concept of female servitude. One such myth that is popular among men describes female servitude as having been established by divine edict and therefore is part of “God’s” plan for women.  This allows men to instill fear in women that if they do not do as they are supposed to do according to God’s Will, they will surely suffer the wrath of that very God!

The image of male superiority has been woven so deeply into the fabric of human consciousness that men have been able to consolidate their power and authority over humanity across countless thousands of generations.  They have condemned women to a secondary social caste from which they are funneled into roles designed to service and support the daily needs and desires of the superior male.  With such a tight grip on power and authority over our world, men have easily been able to force women into positions that are designed solely to serve, support, and satisfy the male ego.  Women have been charged with the natural duty of servicing men and men’s children and have all the value of a house servant.  Men on the other hand were not created to serve, but to dominate and lead.  Therefore, it is unnatural for a man to be forced into servitude.  It is every man’s natural right to receive the services of a dutiful woman, and every woman’s natural right to be able to give those services.  A man should never deny a woman her natural right of servitude.

It’s interesting to note that men don’t have the conscience necessary to be embarrassed in the least by the established social pattern of female subordination.  And even though men have fought wars to free themselves from the slavery of tyrannical despots, they have never struggled to rid the world of the concept of slavery as a whole.  They have only fought to free men from slavery.  There cannot be a struggle for human freedom if that struggle does not include the struggle for the freedom of women.  Men do not consider the concept of human freedom extends to women because women were created for the purpose of service.  Therefore, a woman cannot be labeled a servant or a slave; she is simply naturally duty bound to serve, and it is only through full commitment to those duties that her freedom is truly attained.

Men may claim to be proud of their struggles to free their brothers, but they are steadfast in the determination to keep women down.  Men discriminate against women not because of such minor differences they normally use to discriminate against each other, such as skin color, ethnicity, religion, and so on; no, men discriminate against women because women aren’t constructed like men.  Their bodies are different.  A woman’s body is not shaped like a man’s body. What condemns women to servitude is that they were born without a penis!  Because women have no penis, men consider them forever inferior, and the inferiors can never achieve the level of equality that men share amongst themselves.  Women are the only group on Earth to suffer the injustice of discrimination based upon the shape of their body.  But it is the very shape of a woman’s body that is responsible for creating human life itself, including that of every man.  Yet women are victimized by the most heinous system of organized oppression and discrimination ever directed toward a specific group of people in the history of humanity.  The negative attitude that men project about women creates an atmosphere that leads women to consistently be denigrated, exploited, dominated, oppressed, beaten, raped, and murdered throughout the world’s societies.  Any supposed rights women possess are secondary to those of men.  Men stand united behind the dictate that women are not supposed to have the type of freedom that comes with being a man.  Human freedom was intended for men, but human servitude was intended for women.  Most men consider women to be a different breed of human; created only to fulfill the specific purpose of serving men.  In the world of the male ego, female servitude is a non-issue.  Most men are united in their understanding that women were placed on this earth for the purpose of giving service to men.

It has long been known that discrimination and oppression are the result of a bloated and warped sense of self-importance and callous ignorance that festers in the minds of many male ego motivated men who eventually become possessed by a negative will to control and enslave others. Throughout civilized societies of the world, men have condemned and forbidden the forced servitude and exploitation of the labor of men.  But these same men, in the same civilized societies, unabashedly feed on the forced servitude and exploitation of female labor.  Even those men who have suffered under oppression and tyranny, still readily join in the systematic exploitation of the female!  As of this writing, every nation, government, society, religion, and culture on earth openly or tacitly embraces, encourages, and participates in female subordination.  At this very moment, in every culture on Earth, the most consistent exploitation and oppression ever organized and maintained against a specific group of people in human history is being carried out by men against women.  Men are not concerned with the injustice of female oppression, nor will they raise their voices in protest, because it is men who reap the benefits of female servitude.

How is it possible that women can be denied human freedom and equality by the very men they create?  Why can society condemn the enslavement of men and so readily embrace the oppression of women?  Why do some women seem to embrace their inferiority, taking great pride in serving men?  Steeped in the belief that serving men and society is their natural duty, many women are programmed to disregard any serious social debate that might suggest they are an oppressed and exploited people.  Born to the caste of society’s workhorses and brood mares, women are fated to perform the role of natural servants of free men.  Some women know of no other way of life, and rarely make serious objections about the way they are treated.  The lives of many women are comparable to that which is found under the rule of benevolent despots who avoid heaping public physical abuse upon their subjects in lieu of encouraging and exploiting their labor through displays of faint praise and false respect, like being the “good master.

Men have been able to convince many women that their secondary role in society is an honorable and admirable one.  Lacking the power to dislodge themselves from a life of servitude, those women have resigned to perform it well, and have developed a sense of pride in being amongst those who are “born to serve.”  As in all master/servant relationships, men have become dependent upon women to continue fulfilling their needs and the needs of society.  Therefore, the treatment of women is not categorized as exploitation.  New generations are encouraged to continue this discrimination, and can do so without fear of prosecution because the oppression of women has been exempted from the list of crimes against humanity.  The negative treatment of the female is standard across all cultures.  Females occupy a weak and powerless secondary social position, and this fact is used to justify clearing all guilt from society’s collective conscience that might occasionally arise because of the exploitation of women.  Masking female oppression as “normal and acceptable human behavior,” guarantees female labor will be available for exploitation by future generations.

The structure of human society has always been male master and female servant.  In many cultures a woman is literally stripped of her identity, denied individuality, and lives or dies by the will of the man who owns her.  Women are considered to be the product of an inferior human mold designed by a higher authority to serve their superiors, which of course, are men!  To these men, if women are suffering, it is because they have brought it upon themselves by resisting their natural role on earth which is to serve them.  Many women long ago abandoned most hope of individual freedom for themselves because society has been conditioned to female oppression and servitude.  For thousands of generations, the prejudice and discrimination directed toward women has been universally accepted by society, and normalized as a matter of course.

It is self-evident that no human being has the right to “enslave” another human being.  But the words “slave” and “servant” are not used to define the subjugation that is expected of women because of their secondary position relative to the male.  Indeed, it is their “duty and obligation” to perform their servitude in relation to men.  The prescribed duties for the female as subordinate are standard among all societies and are justified as a fulfillment of the superior male and inferior female roles.  This places female servitude beyond the realm of any moral judgment and authorizes its eternal practice. The only acceptable form of slavery is female servitude.  Not being men, women are far less able to occupy positions of authority reserved for men, and they are not given the inherent human rights that men possess.  Men have determined that people born with the female body are inferior, and can never be considered equal to those born with a male body.  That means that whether you are a mother, wife, sister, daughter, aunt, friend, or lover, you are being exploited because you were born with the inferior mark of the vagina.

Men claim that their superiority over, and subsequent domination of the inferior female cannot be changed nor contested because it was designed by nature and is intended to define the proper behavior between males and females.  Alluding to male superiority as genetic and natural is among the many fallacies and lies woven into human consciousness by the negative male ego in support of the ludicrous claim of male superiority and the eternal servitude of the female to the negative male ego.

Like our Page on FB!

Beyond the Image of Evolution

From Part II Chapter 9  Strive To Evolve or Struggle to Survive

By T.L. Dayen

Abraham Maslow’s “Hierarchy of Need

Human mind clearly understands there is a difference between ‘evolving’ and ‘surviving;’ between ‘’human’ and ‘technological’ advancement.  Maslow’s “Hierarchy of Needs” (HON) illustrates the ascendance from animal mind (survival) to human mind (evolution).  Maslow introduced the concept that evolution transcends mere survival.  As one ascends the hierarchy, limits are removed and expansive opportunity is permitted; whereby growth occurs and the capability to “create” and not just “consume” is realized.  Beginning at the bottom and progressively mastering each level before moving on to the next, as each set of needs are met, more advanced needs become increasingly desirable and achievable.  Maslow theorized that once we collectively mastered all levels of survival, “self-actualization” would signify the evolution of human consciousness.

As a psychologist and psychoanalyst who studied Freud, Maslow was also well-known as an optimist.  Unlike Freud who tended to focus on the “dark underbelly” of humanity, Maslow embraced and emphasized human “potential.”  The HON was indeed an innovative approach to human psychology when it was first published in 1954.  American women had only won the fight for the vote in 1920, but the 1950’s were a very “optimistic” time in our American history.  The HON provided humankind with an affirmation that true human “evolution” was not only achievable, but moreover was a natural linear progression of the human condition.

Maslow’s HON illustrates the human “ideal” that human motive (need) is naturally inclined to move beyond basic physical and material intra-personal needs, to allied and intellectual inter-personal needs, to finally individually creating through collective endeavor.  Not surprisingly, Maslow became increasingly discouraged in his later years. He witnessed what he thought was human evolution through the technological advances of the mid-20th century. But he also noticed that humankind did not appear to be aspiring [evolving] past the first to fourth levels of his HON. This appeared to be true for even those whose needs had obviously been met in order to do so, individually or collectively.  I’m no Maslow, but I think I found the “glitch” in Maslow’s HON.

First, his optimistic ideal unfortunately did not account for the vice grip of animal mind on humanity through the male ego image of reality. Even while Maslow’s later writings contemplated a “humanistic” solution to “evil,” he had not identified it as the male ego of animal mind. He could not have anticipated that the male ego would capitalize on every human mind advancement being made during his time; gaining in its strength, exponentially.  Second, Maslow could not know that the animal mind image of reality would simply adapt to include the ‘perception’ of human mind advancement while maintaining the male ego motives of male superiority, domination, greed, God He and female subordination.  In this adapted image of reality, there is no 5th hierarchy.  Self-realization can be achieved within the first four levels of the HON through consumerism and technology – the image of evolution.

Maslow was born in 1908, but by the time he died in 1970, our sole purpose was to accumulate things that stimulate our physical senses. Therefore, our physical existence defines the parameters of our spiritual understanding of consciousness. The height of that consciousness is limited to the confines of that physical existence we have created with animal mind.

Purpose = Accumulate things > Stimulates physical existence >

Physical existence = Spiritual Understanding of consciousness >< Existing physical world

In the reality of evolution beyond the image, however, our purpose is to accumulate understanding that stimulates our consciousness. Therefore, it is our spiritual understanding of consciousness that defines our physical existence.  The physical existence we can create is only limited by the height of our consciousness we have created with human mind.

Purpose = Accumulate understanding > Stimulates consciousness >

Spiritual Understanding of consciousness = Physical existence >< Height of consciousness

I remember learning of Maslow when I was just a teen, and I’ve often referred to the HON along the way in my life and work.  Maslow’s work will always remain a notable contribution to understanding human evolution, even as I’ve seen where and why it may be limited. The animal mind male ego images of reality are formidable, but I reject that humanity cannot collectively reach the 5th hierarchy and achieve the evolution of human consciousness.  I believe that is our true birth right, and like Maslow, for me it’s a case of “good vs. evil.”  The Female Imperative is a manifesto for a sea change that will facilitate the evolution of human consciousness, and at the very least, save humanity from self-destruction.  But just as we must understand what it means to deconstruct the unsustainable status quo, we must also understand what it means moving forward in human mind.

I use the premise of Maslow’s HON to illustrate what I call the “Tri-ciprocal Duality of humanity” (TDH). Technically, it is “the state of the opposing motives of animal and human mind dueling for perpetuity through their singular reciprocity with the collective social construct.”  In other words, while humanity exists within the animal mind images of reality, socially constructed by the male ego, the dim light of human mind strives to take hold and enlighten.  The pervasive male ego, however, endures as a relentless anchor on the collective, prohibiting female creational consciousness and human evolution.

Triciprocal Duality of Humanity      

Animal Mind                     Social Construct                     Human Mind

Individual                               Collective                                Higher Consciousness

Male superiority                      Female subordination              Equilibrium

Survival                                     Relational                                    Evolutional

Personal          >>>      <<<     Social            >>>      <<<         Universal

Physical/Material                    Mental/Reciprocal                   Creational

Square                                        Circle                                           Spiral

Sensory motivated                   Group motivated                       God motivated

I feel                >>>      <<<      I think              >>>      <<<      I am

Emotional                                  Intellectual                                 Spiritual

Subconscious                             Conscience                                 Consciousness

Belief               >>>      <<<      Science            >>>      <<<      Imagination

Instinct                                       Self Awareness                          Will

Power structures                      Civic Systems                             Adaptive Synergy

Gender/Race                             Religion/Culture                       Humanity/Planet

(1st – 2nd HON levels)            (3rd – 4th HON levels)              (5th HON level)

Whereas Maslow’s HON represents a linear progression of evolutionary potential, the TDH represents the dichotomy of the current human condition (blue) in its conflicted state of struggling to survive (red) while striving to evolve (purple).  But if we were to view the TDH from a potential linear perspective unencumbered by triciprocol duality, we can see the possibility of “primitive mind” progressing into “civilized mind,” from where “human mind” is then possible and collectively achieved.  Human mind  is seeking to expand and evolve.  But the image of evolution veils human mind potential within the image of reality, and the male ego animal mind battle for survival therefore perseveres.

Animal mind (on right) manipulates the collective (center) to socially construct its images that keep it alive and in control.  Human mind, however, continues to seek expansion (on left), shatter the images of the social construct and begin to evolve beyond the image.  TFI has thoroughly explained the dynamic of the first duality on the chart.  Below, I will attempt to briefly explain the others.  Each Triciprocal duality is explained from the “collective” position; struggling to survive in “animal mind” and striving to evolve into “human mind.”  For example, in Empathetic Cooperation, the “relational” collective is kept anchored backward in animal mind “survival” at the same time it strives to move forward into human mind “evolutional,” and so on.

Empathetic Cooperation

Survival  > <  Relational  > <  Evolutional

Animal Mind Image of Reality

Relationships are used and exploited for survival; emotionally, mentally, legally and financially; taking and using what is needed to personally survive.  Relationships are developed and maintained specifically for personal survival advantage.  Relationships are tools for personal control and gain.

Human Mind Reality

Relationships are a natural and necessary symbiotic avenue for mutual growth and contribution; giving and receiving what is needed to advance [evolve] together.  Relationship yields expansive experience that facilitates progressive evolution.

Collaborative Expansion

Personal  > <  Social  > <  Universal

Animal Mind Image of Reality

Society is not an individual collective; it is a collection of individuals.  Society reflects and serves disjointed personal needs and desires; fragmented multiplicity.  Society is sacrificed and mined for personal gain.  Society is a tool of personal control and gain.

Human Mind Reality

Society is a cohesive unit of individuals achieving personal aims through collaborative and mutual effort toward shared goals.  Personal success is gained by social symbiosis.  Social unity manifests universal understanding (expansion).

Creative Expansion

Physical/Material  > <  Mental/Reciprocity  > <  Creational

Animal Mind Image of Reality

Communication is used to manipulate and influence others to serve one’s personal physical and material needs and desires.  Consumerism and market profits are founded upon and commensurate with messaging skill and subliminal manipulation.  Psychology is a tool of personal control and gain.

Human Mind Reality

Communication is necessary for relationship, education and informed unity.  Communication unites personal mind with collective consciousness. Communicative relationship manifests expansion of thought which facilitates creation.

Liberated Development

Square  > <  Circle  > <   Spiral

Animal Mind Image of Reality

The compartmentalization and confinement (square) of sustainability provides for private ownership and authoritive appropriation for personal gain. Confinement is unsustainable, and is a tool for personal control and gain.

Human Mind Reality

Only that which is first sustainable (circle) can then manifest unlimited (spiral) potential.

Creational [God] Consciousness

Sensory Motivation  > <  Group Motivation  > <  God Motivation

Animal Mind Image of Reality

Energy generated by the group is seized and mainlined for the heightened sensory experience of the individual that cannot be achieved individually.  Seizing the group motive multiplies individual sensory experience which is used as a tool for personal control and gain.

Human Mind Reality

Energy generated by the group expands and empowers the capability and aptitude of the individual to experience beyond their personal limitations and realize their own creational contribution that cannot be achieved in individual isolation


I Feel  > <  I Think  > <  I See (I am)

Animal Mind Image of Reality

Our ability to think is only manifested by our ability to feel. Therefore, thought is feeling.  Erratic feeling naturally justifies irrational thought.  Justification of irrational thought allows for the perpetuity of reckless personal expression, and is used to veil or accountability and exempt authentic purpose.

Human Mind Reality

Thought interprets feeling.  Vision expands thought.  Thought without vision limits our ability to interpret our feelings and therefore limits our self-control.  To truly see, is to truly see oneself and one’s authentic purpose.

Spiritual Awakening

Emotional  > <  Intellectual  > <  Spiritual

Animal Mind Image of Reality

The emotional body is the seat of the soul.  Love, fear, wisdom, hate, all stem from our emotional state, reaction or need.  The intellect is simply the avenue through which to explain, express or justify our emotional selves.  One’s intellect reflects one’s emotions and so can remain justifiably malleable to emotional whim, desire or re-action.

Human Mind Reality

Human mind is achieved when human emotional experience is integrated with intellect.  The mind is the seat of the soul.

Provident Cognizance

Subconscious  > <  Conscience  > <  Intelligence

Animal Mind Image of Reality

Our conscience is dictated by our subconscious.  One’s conscience; what is right and what is true; is therefore subjective to each individual and cannot be trusted as collective understanding.  Without a collective standard of conscience, then integrity, morality and justice is a matter of individual opinion or feeling.

Human Mind Reality

Intelligence is derived from common sense, or “collective conscience.”  A conscience cannot be subjective; as it is by its very nature, discerning and sagacious.  Intelligence is by its very nature objective, and therefore cannot exist without unanimity of conscience.  The subconscious is a tool for creative thought, not intelligent deduction.

Actualization of Possibility

Belief  > <  Science  > <  Imagination

Animal Mind Image of Reality

Belief is the basis of survival.  It is the driver of faith. Adversity is the human condition, and therefore belief is a human necessity.  Science is void of faith because facts are not based on belief.  Science which does not support and empower the beliefs of humanity only weakens humanity.  Beliefs (images) are used as a tool to impede the exposure and validity of that (reality) which would obstruct personal control or gain.

Human Mind Reality

We cannot imagine that which ‘could actually be,’ without first knowing that which ‘actually is.’  Imagination based on fictional facts (beliefs) can only manifest and maintain an “image.”  But imagination based upon truth (science) can manifest the potential within “reality.”  Nothing imagined will become real without science.  Any future imagined reality can only stem from a reality that is presently understood (science).  Science can exist without imagination, but it cannot manifest [advance] possibility.  Imagination can exist without science, but it will only manifest an image of reality.

Original Action

Instinct  > <  Self Awareness  > <  Will/Action/Choice

Animal Mind Image of Reality

Instinct is the basis of the human condition; the instinct to survive, to procreate, to fight, to love, to hate, to war, to protect.  Our instincts provide us with all that we need to survive.  Our self-awareness is personally and collectively measured and judged by how well we “follow our instincts.”  Limiting our self-awareness to our instincts inhibits original action and justifies instinctual behavior even when not rational or ‘just’ behavior.  It is re-action.

Human Mind Reality

Self-awareness discerns between instinctual impulse and reasonable motive.  Self-awareness considers impulse and motive in relation to its environment and circumstances.  Willful and original choice and action stems from self-awareness.  Self-awareness promotes accountability and obligatory responsibility.

Synergistic and Holistic Civic Innovation

Power Structures  > <  Civic Ordinance  > <   Adaptive Synergy

Animal Mind Image of Reality

Power is the basis of control and dominance needed in the battle for survival.  Structure sustains and perpetuates power.  Civic ordinance is used to fortify the established hierarchy of influence within power structures (commerce, politics, penal, energy, food, etc.), or at the very least not weaken them.  Power structures work through and rely upon civic ordinance to maintain personal control and gain.

Human Mind Reality

Civil society develops civic ordinance to impartially regulate and allocate the resources, policies and influence generated by that society’s power structures. Civic ordinance does not rigidly defend and buttress established power hierarchies. Adaptive synergy requires civic ordinance to objectively adjust to mutable realities affecting the welfare of its citizens.  Adaptive synergy seeks progressive development of civic ordinance that serves as an amenable conduit for human advancement.

Actualization of Human Mind

Gender/Race  > <  Religion/Culture  > <  Humanity/Planet

Animal Mind Image of Reality

Gender and race division is the basis of the human condition.  Gender determines function and race determines place.  This is sanctified by birth and is therefore ordained as within the natural order.  Hierarchy’s that developed from the natural order are the ordained established order.  Our faith and our culture must reflect these “truths” and must discourage deviant beliefs and behaviors.  Our physical existence is temporal and insulated and we must be held to doctrine to ascend.  Division, segregation and isolation are used as tools to maintain personal control and gain.

Human Mind Reality

Humanity is one diverse species in a chemical and cyclical relationship with planet Earth.  Our cultures are a reflection of our coalesced diversity. Our religions are our attempt to explain our existence and guide our purpose.  Our cultures and religions are humanity’s organizational perceptions of function and purpose. They were established by humans, not nature, to maintain cohesive order in a once chaotic and primitive environment. They are NOT the totality of our existence; but man-made channeled perspectives of it.  They are subject to human will and adaptation.

Evolution requires us to break free of our man-made channels of division as they are choking our expansion that can now only occur with unity.  Divisions, whether ordained (religion), prejudiced (discrimination) or entitled (superiority), are no longer serving humanity, and are in fact threatening to annihilate us and our planet Earth.

Like our Page on FB!



At What Point “Human?”

dads pic

By Shane Stewart

March 20

I am a man blogging on a subject that in truth belongs entirely in the realm of female consciousness and control. Women, and only women have the right to control their own bodies. Men have no business legislating anything about the female body. So why am I writing on this subject that belongs solely in the world of the female? I must write on this subject as a male because I know that the male of our species has hijacked the definition of “human life,” and it has been done solely to strengthen the image of male “superiority.” Men have done it to further strip the female of any power and authority over her own body and what happens in -or to – it. The negative, dominant, violent male ego knows no bounds in its blatant attempts at maintaining female oppression and domination throughout the world – forever. Men have women “locked down” in every aspect of life, and the male ego is now even trying to “legally,” through legislation, reach into the “cradle of life” – the female womb – to control and oppress women; to legislate that a human being exists inside a woman’s body at the moment of “insemination” by the male sperm. This is a ludicrous, female – oppressive, male ego idea. This type of “moral legislation” is mostly known as “person-hood.” And the legislation being proposed by these men about the definition of “life” is being driven mostly by religious fantasies which is in violation of the separation of church and state in the U.S. Constitution and, I must add, in the separation of “morality” and individuality in human society! Every American has the right to religious “freedom.” But no American has the right to force their religious “ideology” upon the other citizens of America through government legislation, no matter what your religious belief. We are not a theocracy! Every American as well, has the right to their own “moral” structure, but not the right to force those morals  upon others in society.

To the male ego, the female is nothing more than a resource, a commodity to be used and controlled by men; much like a deposit of oil, a stand of trees, or a herd of cattle. And men are the ones who have taken unto themselves the power  to decide how the “female resource” is to be used on this planet. And men have decided that the “use” of women is mostly sexual and domestic in nature. Men long ago quashed any concepts that women might have had regarding female “independence.” In the consciousness of most men, women are a “dependent attachment,” an addendum to the male ego, and certainly do not stand as equal “partners” in this “man‘s” world. This male ego attitude of female inferiority is quite remarkable because everyone knows we have all arrived on Earth through a woman, haven’t we? How then can women be “inferior” to the very beings they “create?” 

Humanity is the product of female labor. It is “she” who brings forth our population. It is “her” body that allows or disallows a bio-chemical reaction to continue to possibly develop into an independent being. And that process takes months and months inside the female body. The male body has nothing at all to do with that “eventual” development. In the entire process of procreation, the male has but a small responsibility; a brief encounter of necessity for “insemination.” And if “artificial” insemination is used for pregnancy, then that brief encounter is not even necessary. The male presence is not required throughout the entire process of pregnancy, or the entire lifetime of that being. Not so for the female. So obviously, the responsibility for “life” between the male and female is wholly and entirely, out of balance; a brief encounter as opposed to months and months and years and years? Men do not like that fact! It makes them appear to be relatively unimportant. And in reality, that is the cold, hard truth. This is why many dominant males are trying so hard to legislate that the second the sperm “breaks through” the wall of the ovum (insemination) a human being has sprung forth in the womb of a woman. This fallacy of thinking is critical to the image of male superiority because what is being said here is that the sperm is the most important element in life and decides everything. Not so! And a sperm does not “break through” the wall of the ovum. If that were true many more of these millions of sperm would be banging their way into the same ovum at the same time! This however, is a good example of the forceful and violent way most men think about women; the sperm (male) dominates the ovum (female). The truth is that the ovum “accepts” a sperm and then closes off to the others. Acceptance is the female reality and the truth. Force is the male reality and the lie.

There is no human “life” in the ovum at the moment of insemination. There is simply a bio-chemical reaction taking place. Just as surely as a seed newly planted in a field is not the crop, a seed newly planted in a female womb is not a human being!! No one plants rows and rows of corn seed then turns around the next day to go get the tractor and harvest the crop! There is no crop! Developmental stages must occur over time through which bio-chemical reactions can build a viable product. This is also true in the human world. In actuality, the entire issue of when life occurs during procreation is merely about male ego control over women, their bodies, and their activities! It’s all about the image of male “superiority” and male dominated “religious” control over women. Men have dominated women across thousands of centuries and will struggle to continue to do so at any expense, forever!

Many egotistical and oppressive men – and some women molded by them – are rabid about not allowing women the freedom to discontinue a pregnancy. This means at anytime under any conditions, even unto the death of the mother! And to make matters even worse for women, those people trying to legislate the definition of “life” are also trying to stop the use of birth control! Any kind of birth control! Many company owners will impose their religious “ideology” upon their female workers by molding their insurance plans that will pay for Viagra to bolster a man’s virility, but will not pay for birth control where-by a woman could prevent becoming pregnant and not have to discontinue it. So now we have an unbelievable situation where men would deny a woman the ability to prevent a pregnancy, and once pregnant, would force her to give birth, even unto her own death. Where is “pro-life” in the conscious killing of a woman? This is truly an unspeakable evil perpetrated by the male ego. There are even organizations today making the claim that birth control itself (the prevention of pregnancy) is killing “children!” Where are these children that are being killed? How can you “kill” something that does not exist? Truly, these people see women solely as broodmares and servants, and are determined to control the entire sexuality of the female!

So what about the sperm itself in this issue? There is hardly any attention given to the sperm in all this ruckus about “life.” If men insist that the sperm is life, then why are they not legislating protection for that life. Let’s consider for a moment the various ways many men treat that life. That “life” is ejaculated down shower drains, down the toilet, behind the barn, off in the bushes, into a condom, into a “sex toy,” into their fist, onto a glossy page in a sex magazine, and yes, even into animals! Should this not be considered then the “destruction” of life? Men do not consider their sperm to be “life” until it is ejaculated into a female vagina. Then suddenly this sperm is immediately a human being? Should there not be legislation then that a man cannot ejaculate his sperm anywhere or anytime unless it is into a female vagina? Is that not the protection of “life?” Just imagine those millions of sperm dying down the drain! But the sperm does not construct human life. Human life is constructed in the female ovum in stages, through bio-chemical reactions, over a long period of time!!! But once again male domination of the female springs forth. And if a pregnancy does continue to eventual fruition, men have assured that this child will come into a world dominated by the male ego practice of Patrilineage. This practice (ancestry through the male line) is overwhelmingly followed in virtually all societies of the Earth. Men consider children to be “theirs.” “These are ‘my’ children. They have ‘my’ name. She only gives birth to these children for me. That is her duty! To give me children.” And on and on they go in their male ego fantasy world…

This blog is titled “Life?; At What Point “Human?” Frankly I am not sure anyone knows when that point is reached. I do know that the moment the ovum and sperm combine, the “potential” for human life is there, yes. But potential is not “actuality;” it is only “possibility.” Many things can occur over time through the process of the construction of viable life in the womb, including spontaneous miscarriage and still-birth. Again, it is ludicrous to say that a human being has sprung forth at the moment of insemination. This idea is only being bandied around so men can further continue their campaign to dominate the female body. Some men say that the intention of the sperm is the development of “human life”. But again, intent is not a “reality.” Intent can be changed at anytime. This is comparable to saying that a bank robber who walks in with the intent to rob a bank, must now continue to do so at any cost because that was the intent. Are these people saying intent can’t be changed? Insemination is only the design for something; it is not the actuality of it. Again, this “idea of life” at insemination is being driven by religious fantasies which are only “beliefs.” Religious “belief,” and/or any other “belief” does not have to have rationale, thought, or truth behind it.

Suppose I burn the blueprint design for a ten story building and I am taken to court. What will the charge be? Destroying a ten story building? There was no building to destroy. The judge might say; “Mr. Stewart, the prosecutor is charging you with destroying a ten story building! How do you plead?”   I will respond; “Your Honor, I am innocent. There was no building. I simply burnt a piece of paper that had a ‘design’ for a possible building. Is that destroying a building?” The judge will dismiss the case. Why? Because the blueprint potential, the design for a building is not the actuality of a building. At what point human life occurs in the womb is not a decision to be legislated by the male ego through male dominated religious edict! It is an issue that must rest entirely with the female of our species. But I do know that it is NOT at the moment of “insemination.” That is simply a male ego lie to continue female oppression and most women know that.

Every woman on Earth is inherently endowed with the right to discontinue pregnancy for ANY reason up to a certain point. The morning after? Of course! One week down the road? Absolutely! A month from now?  Yes! I will save any further comments on this subject for another blog because this particular writing is solely to correct the male ego lie that a human being “appears” at the moment of insemination. Once again, this is religious ideology and personal “moral” structure, and those who believe it are free to do so. But that “belief” must not be forced upon the human female in our society!