Chili

Go to the former USSR and you will find females outnumber males 10 to 4, all beautiful ladies expressing now the soul nature of high-culture Russia before its crash that was followed by a crunch instead of reform and so neutered the masculine male with no ego to polish and shine so that he can have an identity of his own. Sad but true and this could very well be the greatest cost of Communism as it was there.

As I understand, and this is just hearsy to me, that in Canada today 'husband sharing' is being evaluated to provide family assimilation to the upper class single females where the available male shortage is more evident with also a notable higher percentage of humosexual males in that same social environment.

Not sure if this means anything but for my own satisfaction I have demonstrated with chickens that a 100 male birth is possible by just creating the right social enviroment. So yes, it appears to be a 'domestication' problem.

Chili

Oh it is universal and belongs in each and every mythology since that is where we come full circle and know it as if for the first time. And yes, she was a lady first and queen to make kingship known.

Chili

Only and all the human condition is sin since it is TOK in origination, temporal and blank slate based from where also our goodness is like filthy rags beside the woman of the TOL, presiding there still and ruling over the TOK from behind the scene.

The eiditic images we created are insights only because they are tied down in the soul by the woman (who actually prompted the primary premiss as the postive stand in the rout), to be retained in heaven (mansion image) after the woman is assumed and crowned queen of heaven on/and earth.

Original sin is the best thing that ever happened to mankind who so became a rational agent (as are all sentient beings) that enables him to cope and survive in a changing biological environment, but also is wherein he is estranged from his own true identity and therefore a stranger in a foreign land.

Chili

Here's more on that in case you wonder:

What prompted the experiment was a discussion that there has never been 'female dominant' society that survived for long. This was discussed in and Anthro course I took (I did a BA when I was 42), but there was one in Southern Tibet where they practiced polyandry and was female dominant on account of the surname being that of the female, but surprising was that they had close to 75 % male births. They were Buddhist in a very harsh climate with always one male out with the animals and a monk on the road (maybe) but these details were not clear to us.

My reaction was how a woman can be dominant with 3 males around, and of course I am from the 'opposite sex society' and saw in church that active intelligent left brain females had fewer or no boys born to them.

Of course my theory was my own but I saw this as evidence in my favor and that is what started the experiment.

We had Silky's and bantams for fun with the kids (over the the years we had peacocks and guiney hens, turkeys and ducks geese and even pheasants). Not sure if you know but normal bantams are tough little barnyards chickens that survive easy but Silkies are a fancy show animal, white, with long leg and neck feathers and they are silky to the touch and are very gentle little chickens.

I noticed that they produced more male birds from the bantams so next year I put 5 bantam roosters with one silky and all she had was males. That was about 25 years ago and did it again with the same success.

The experiment may not have been fair to her but that was like that only in spring and then they were let lose again. Not that it matters much but I am sure that it will repeat again for anyone reading this.