Here are my honest thoughts on it. If it offends you, then so be it.

In places like Mumbai or the United Arab Emirates there is a desperate need for feminism. I listen to them, and I applaud them. Using their bodies and autonomy, it is different than a cropped haired, sweaty and pig ringed feminist in America. Where, the only thing they fight for, is to grow body hair and fight a mythological patriarchy.

There are two different kinds of feminists. There were the Flappers. Who, rightly, cropped their hair and later would win the right to vote. Then, there is the piggish feminist who uses sex as a weapon to frustrate her male counterpart.

Women ought to vote. They ought to run heads of state. They ought to run businesses. Where I draw the line is at a pastor---but that is settled in my religion. It is not something I extend to the world around me. Women ought to have sports they can play---specifically for them---they ought to compete with men at chess and cards. 

What women ought not do, is fight a never ending battle to win ground and replace polygamy with misandry. They ought not divorce. They ought to remain at home if they can, and raise the children. But, so must men in my estimation. The point is, stability needs to be at home, in the family, where most of the true love is formed. Where people can grow, connect, and be close to one another.

There are feminists I applaud all around the world. In China, India, Pakistan, Iran, Mongolia... A woman in America has no right to be a feminist. All her battles are won. Anything more is merely pushing to a line that ought not be crossed. As, the gender wage gap is not real. It is, rather, explained through very real facts about being a woman. Facts that need dealt with and thought about, before a woman ever decides to have a career.

There is nothing a woman cannot do---but by personal judgment, there are things a woman ought not do. That is the culture I want. For instance, making women work, and forcing them to obtain an income is counter against the nature of womankind. Simply, there's a lot of problems created by single motherhood, and there are a lot of problems created by two parents working. There isn't enough attention given to the kids. And, they grow up to be little monsters. But, an absent father---always at work---is just as dangerous as an absent mother. In my estimation, parents need to work from home, and take care of their children. School their children. Do the bruntwork of the raising of their children. As schools do not love children like mothers do. And the most severe kind of love, is a mother's love. Separating her from her child is a crime, and forcing her to do wage labor is a crime. It's a crime. Should the woman want to do it---I see no problem with it. But, ought the woman do it, or else suffer consequences? I think that is the crux of the wage gap issue. And no... women ought not receive stipends for leaving work. They and their husbands ought to work from home, or run a family business as I've seen so often done by immigrant families.

That is my thoughts on Feminism, and if you believe it diverges off the course of the topic...  disagree. These fundamental problems are at the root of the feminist movement, and I offer common sense solutions which will work.

What does 2Pac and a Racist White Southern Scholar have in common? A lot, actually. They both believe the Civil War was not fought because of slavery, and they both probably use the slur Uncle Tom.

Let's just go down the line.

First, the Civil War was fought over Slavery. There can be no other reason for the war to be fought. Mark Twain, having joined the Rebel Army, left the army the very same day. Why? Because he was told it was about protecting the South's right to own slaves. Abraham Lincoln couldn't avoid civil war because the die had been cast. Slavery would be abolished soon. The South, forecasting those devices, preemptively started the bloodiest war in American History.

Uncle Tom, as it were, was a widely disseminated tract in support of abolishing slavery. Uncle Tom was a Christ Like Figure who died in service to his fellow blacks, dying so they could run free. Then, the war garnered such support for the abolition of slavery, that people actually joined the Union army in droves because they had read Uncle Tom's Cabin, and felt sympathy, as the work humanized black people in the eyes of white Northerners.

Also, the Battle Hymn of the Republic was written for the express intent of freeing blacks. The Northerners had the song, sung the song---as did the South, but they just appropriated the song---and the North sung in the lyrics, "He died to make men holy, LET US LIVE TO MAKE MEN FREE, His truth is marching on."

Also, the reason Uncle Tom is a pejorative, is because racist Southerners created journals which stigmatized Uncle Tom, and they began making satirical plays called "Tom Plays" Throughout the South which made Uncle Tom into a racist figure. It was, for express intentions, the White Southerners who created these Tom Plays, as they were salty for having lost the war due to the enormous recruitment by the sentiment Uncle Tom's Cabin created.

Then, if that weren't bad enough, those same journals created the stigma against sentimentalism in art. Bleeding into our current situation where gaudy and grotesque and bathos and scatological art is patronized. Because beauty, and all sentiments of feelings which are pure and awesome and right have been deemed as "Kitsch" by a group of racist White Southerners looking to do as much damage as they can.

Now, the Black Lives Matter movement is a propagate of these same Racist Southerner's ideas, by calling productive Blacks "Uncle Tom", by scathing beautiful art, by hating intrinsically well formed material. 2Pac couldn't be more wrong about the Civil War. Every drop of blood spilled was in the aim of ending Chattel Slavery. The Fourteenth Amendment was drafted as a direct result of the war. The Emancipation Proclamation was created because of the war.

What's truly racist, is Black Lives Matter because it is the invention of the White Southern Racism, to create a straw man, enemy image to burn down as an effigy of rage in the face of White Nationalism. Do not be fooled.

Stowe, Harriet Beecher. Uncle Tom's Cabin. 1852. With Introduction, Notes and For Further Reading, by Amanda Claybaugh. Barnes and Noble Books, 2003. Text.

I've encountered this in Jung's philosophy. First, I thought they were foolish, but then I recognized the confusion of the younger generations on Gender Fluidity, and how this is being taught in the schools.

The feminine is the feeling. The masculine is the rational. The feminine is the nurturing. The masculine is the protective instinct. The feminine is the individual. The masculine is the collective. The feminine is the familial; the masculine is the societal.

I thought to myself, "The confusion of the current generation on gender..." That, having the fluidity---described by Jung as the androgynous aspect of the soul---it seems our expressions of Gender Fluidity are actually a reaction to the universal androgyny of the self. That both men and women have rational and emotional capabilities, both men and women have nurturing and protective capabilities. Both men and women have individual and collective instincts. Both men and women have familial and societal instincts. And in this, the confusion of the inner self is expressing itself, now, in the androgyny of sex and sexual identity.

I think it's important that people---all of us---understand there is androgyny in the soul. That we all share aspects of feminine and masculine gender identity within our souls. Rather, the detrimental side of Gender Fluidity is the expression of that androgyny in the persona. Which is not where it belongs. It's taking things deeper than the shadow---more primal and instinctual---and drives them to the consciousness and into the persona. 

The danger of this is simple. One does not want their shadow integrated into the persona. We call this "Toxic Masculinity", yet it's more fundamentally the latent aggression of the psyche becoming conscious in the persona, which is dangerous because it doesn't allow the person to integrate and thereby flow with healthy civilizations. Same thing with the deeper elements, of the Anima and Animus. If we drive those into the persona---into the superficial face we wish to show to the world---we are driving confusing aspects of our nature into the persona. We are, in effect, confusing what is our deepest psychical nature with something we show to the external world.

I think this is dangerous, for obvious reasons. The confusion it creates, telling children that something normal---something observed throughout history, in the form of Atalanta or King David---of the Anima and Animus being expressed in individuals... We understood this, yet we didn't reject that---these characters of the androgyny of the soul,---but rather, we didn't let them be driven into our persona, by manipulating people's perceptions of us to truly accept our darker nature. Rather, our dark nature ought to be hidden, and expressed in things like humor, stories and only be something which influences us from the dark places they reside, which is the deepest layer of the psyche.

It seems like the current mentality is to draw out our deepest latent psychical things, the Shadow and Anima and Animus, into the persona, and to drive our subconscious into the conscious. Now, forgive me if I must say, our subconscious is the same thing that dreams, and dreams seem to me most unconstructive. If anyone were honest, they would tell of dreaming of murder, suicide, promiscuity, and many other deeply evil things. And that's the danger, is driving that dream world into the conscious, into the persona. As, now are we not subduing the aggression, the androgyny---we are expressing it in our very superego. And frankly, being there people will be able to commit just about any crime, if our subconscious is unfiltered by the self and denied access to the ego and persona. As, then the more rational functions of mankind prevail, if one accepts the fact that sex is biological, and gender ought to remain correlated with sex. As, we all have androgyny latent in our subconscious. And that androgyny does not belong in the ego nor persona in healthy civilizations. Rather, reversing the Persona to reveal our darkest nature leads to that darkest of nature spilling out into the areas of life where it doesn't belong. It's bringing the Dream World into the Real World;---and I think that's unconstructive, if not very dangerous.

Because one thing I notice in Homosexuals, and Non-binary genders is the driving of their subconscious into the conscious, thereby trying to create a persona developed around the psychologically dangerous parts of our mind. Which, exist possibly for the purpose of giving men and women ways to relate to one another, and also to help us share in one another's burdens. But, driven into the conscious, we are no longer sharing one another's burdens, but becoming one another's burdens by tyrannizing one another with our aggression and androgyny.

Jung, Carl. Figure 5: Jung's Model of the Psyche. Licensure Exams, Inc.. Image.