The 2020s is the decade of women. Some might hear this and say: “Well, then that decade is certainly off to a flying start, given the additional burden that has been put on women during the corona pandemic”. Many people have talked about how women’s situation has worsened in these last couple of years, primarily because many women have had to stay home to take care of sick family members.
It has caused them to lose their jobs, and there are those who say that what has been achieved over the past several decades in terms of equality has been set back by these two years. While there may be setbacks in the physical realm, the improvement of women’s situation seen over these last several decades was driven by a change in the mind, in the emotional, mental and identity bodies. And even though there has been some setback there, it has not been nearly as big as many people think, based on the physical appearances. It is much easier for women to go back to make progress again, than it was before. You can much more quickly catch up to where you were before the pandemic.
The balanced perspective of women
If we step back and look at the situation in the United States specifically, we can see, of course, the increase in animosity, conflict, the breakdown of communication between, basically, Trump supporters and those who are not Trump supporters or even those who do not want Trump to become president again. But beyond this, you see a divide between those who are primarily Christians, who want to hold on to traditional values, and those who are more progressive people who want to move the nation further along beyond those traditional values. There are people in America who have managed to portray this in the classical terms, as an epic struggle between good and evil. Where, of course, the Christians, the white supremacists, the more conservative people, the Trump supporters are the good people and those who are against them, are the bad people.
What has driven this divide? Not only among Trump supporters, but also those who are against them. This has been not exclusively but certainly primarily driven by men. What is the only realistic way to move beyond this? It is that women step forward, take their role and bring a balanced perspective based on the recognition that this really is not in the best interest of anybody. And it is not in the best interest of the nation. It does not serve America or the people of America to continue moving towards a civil war-like scenario with widespread uprising and anarchy, where potentially the law enforcement community and the armed forces will have to fight their own people.
Who is served by this? Well, yes, the power elite will be served by this, because it will allow them to rule. The enemies of America abroad, such as Putin and Xi Jinping, will be laughing if such a scenario occurred. For this is exactly what they have dreamt about in their wildest dreams, to take America down. They know very well that the only real threat to their ambitions is the United States. But if the United States is not united, they are not nearly as big of a threat, are they?
Who can bring balance into the current charged, polarized situation? Only women. There are, of course, also men, but primarily women, who can bring that moderate balanced perspective and say: “This is enough, now. We have to get beyond this. We cannot continue down this path. We have to move on.” Many women have already done so in private, some have done so in public, but many more can do it. That is why there is a need for women to be elected in greater numbers to the Congress and the Senate. You can see very clearly that they are still grossly underrepresented in America. And this needs to be corrected. But there is also a need that moderate, balanced candidates will be elected. Whether they are women or men, whether they are Democrats or Republicans. For, of course, there are moderate, balanced candidates in both parties.
But it is not just a matter of who is elected. It is really a matter of women across America waking up, taking a stand and saying: “No violence, no conflict, no animosity, no hatred, no anger. We have had enough of this. We need to find a way to live together in this nation without looking at each other over the barrel of a gun. It is simply enough.”
Now, you have seen that women have the potential to create such a movement. The entire MeToo movement is an example of how women can stand up for their own rights. The rights to not be sexually abused, to not be sexually targeted by men in their professions or in other contexts. But when you consider what is going on, with the animosity and the brewing conflict in America, if there is a situation where there is widespread violence and fighting, would women not also become targets? Either directly or at least indirectly by their men going out and fighting other men. Would this not also affect women? Would it not also be an abuse of women?
Violence is not a solution to problems
When do you wake up and say: “Me too. I do not want an escalation of violence. I do not want an escalation of conflict. I want this to stop. And I want it to stop now.” Many women are close or have reached that point. It is not a matter of what side you are on in the political spectrum. It is not a matter of whether you are for this president or that president, this candidate or that candidate. The real issue here is: Are you for or against violence? Or do you realize that violence never solves our problems?
Did the Civil War solve any problems in America? Did other violent uprisings solve any problem? Someone needs to ask: “Why is it that when you look at history, you see that in most democratic nations they have made certain specific types of progress without violence. But in many cases in the United States, we have not been able to make the same progress without violence. Why is it necessary that Americans have to fight about something that happens peacefully in other nations, because there emerges a consensus in those nations?”
Finding common ground
Now, you will say that women in America are also divided. They are also divided on the political spectrum. There are women who are lifelong conservatives, Christians, Republicans, so forth. But what is it that women have the potential to do that men find it much more difficult to do?
This might be somewhat of a cliche but nevertheless. You can have two men who meet, they start talking, they are feeling each other out. They might find that they are on opposite sides of the political spectrum or a particular issue. Very quickly, this can lead to a point where these two men cannot communicate because they do not really have anything in common that they can communicate about. The division divides them.
Now you have two women who get together. And often when women get together, it is in the context of them doing something for their children. Two women who meet, they can start talking about children, and they have something in common that then can help them see beyond divisions. Women have the potential to step back and say: “Yes, we are divided by politics, we are on opposite sides of the political spectrum. We may even have opposite views of specific issues such as abortion or gun control. But do we have to focus on the differences? Or could we instead focus on what we have in common? What actually unites us. Could we not explore that? Talk about that, establish some kind of common bond, some kind of mutual respect. And then perhaps when we have built that, then perhaps we can start talking about other issues, and see if there are things we can agree on that can help us deal with the political divisions”.
In other words, men, once they are divided, often focus on the outer issues: “We have to be able to keep our guns. No, guns have to be taken away.” And once you are focused at that level, how are you going to find something in common on that particular issue? Which is a black and white, yes or no, issue.
But women have the ability, in general, to step back and say: “Well, yes, perhaps we have different views of gun control. But do we still have certain things that we can agree on? For example, you are for gun control, I am against it. But do you want your husband to shoot my husband? Or do you want my husband to shoot yours? Can we agree that we are both against violence, we are both for peaceful resolution to conflict?”
This is not to say that men cannot do the same and that some men, of course, have already done so. But there is a greater potential that women in America can do this, can say: “Now wait a minute, guys. Let’s just step back and think about this before we load the guns. Do we really want this to escalate? Do we really want the people of America to become more and more divided? For who benefits from it? The elite, those who want to maintain status quo.”
This requires you to think more deeply about issues, and to think about them not from the surface level of the issue itself, but from a perspective of the basic humanity. “We are all human beings. You may have the opposite political viewpoint than I have, but we both have children. And our children deserve to grow up in a peaceful society where they can work on whatever goals they have in life, without being shot at, or killed, or killing others.”
These are perspectives that men find it much more difficult to consider. But women certainly have that potential, to be a moderating voice in society. You can point to certain women who are examples of the opposite. But the majority of women have that ability to step back and say: “But are not we all human beings? Do we not all have certain rights? Do we not deserve a certain respect? Is there not a limit to what we can do to others?” These are important things for the more aware people to hold the vision for, so that women will step forward, women will be empowered. That women will, first of all, get out to vote and vote in greater numbers than ever before, and vote for candidates who are balanced, whether they are men or women.
Religions that suppress women
Now to take this in a slightly different direction. What is happening in Iran, with the death of one woman and the uprising driven in large part by women in that country. No woman is truly free until all women are free around the planet. Especially, women who are, and there is no other way to put this, being continually abused by the state, and by the state religion of Islam. Islam has been abusing women for thousands of years. So have, of course, the Catholic Church, many Christian churches, the Hindu religion, and other religions. One of the primary factors for suppressing women, abusing women, is religion. The kind of religions that are patriarchal, male-dominated, based on a male-centered view of life.
Now, not so long ago, the pope made a statement to a women’s conference, that women are better leaders than men. At least, they are better administrators. But he also said that it was important that women gain leadership positions in society, using the example that women made female presidents or prime ministers have responded better to the corona pandemic than many countries led by men, especially those who were the populists, right-wing leaders. And this is, of course, a very interesting development. It is not that Pope Francis has not, over the years, taken small steps to give women greater influence in the Catholic Church. But he hasn’t even come close to addressing the central issues of what makes the Catholic Church suppressive and abusive towards women. If you were to really change this, you would have to allow women to hold any position in a church, including his own. You would have to allow priests to marry, whereby you would solve many of the problems with pedophilia, homosexuality, corruption in the church. But is this going to happen? Well, not so likely, is it?
The pope makes this statement, he makes this statement to women at a women’s conference. But who is the pope? He is the head of the Catholic Church, an institution that has existed for 17 centuries and has only and exclusively been led by men. What do you have here? You have a man who makes statements about women as leaders, a male leader who makes statements about women as leaders. But he does this from a male perspective. And his view is limited by the tradition he comes from, the institution he leads, which has had a highly distorted view of women for 17 centuries. It even goes beyond the Catholic Church, going back into the mists of history in male-dominated societies, patriarchal societies. Does it really have any value whatsoever that a man like the pope makes any statements and observations about women?
What would have value was if he acted upon it by letting women take up leadership positions in his own institution. Some will say: “Well, he is trying to,” but is he? Is he really seriously allowing women to hold decision-making positions? Or is he just giving them a handout, to make it seem like he stands for change. What would it take to change the Catholic Church from a male-dominated institution to a more balanced institution? It could not be done. Because it would require such fundamental changes, that it would be easier to start a new institution that from the beginning was set up to be balanced. Is the Catholic Church going to do that? Not very likely, is it?
Looking for an alternative form of spirituality
This, of course, has implications for America as well, because many Americans are Catholics. Has there really been change in the Catholic Church in America? There have been many of the child abuse scandals going back now several decades, when they were first exposed, or started to be exposed. But has there really been fundamental change? What can women do? Well, you can either say: “I am going to wait for the church to change” but is it likely that this will happen in your lifetime? Or you could say: “I am not going to wait for the church, I am going to find another kind of spirituality that will satisfy my spiritual needs.” Many women have, of course, done this. You see many spiritual movements of various kinds that have a larger number of women than men. And this is something that needs to happen to a greater and greater extent, that the women simply leave the male-dominated churches, whether the Catholic or the Protestant evangelical churches, and find a different form of spirituality.
There is a potential in America and it has, of course, been going on for decades. But it has the potential to be accelerated greatly in the next decade of this 2020s, so that more and more people leave traditional religion and join some new form of spirituality. A more universal, non-sectarian form of spirituality. This is not saying New Age, because the term New Age has been used in derogatory ways by the traditional religions, and besides that, the New Age movement has been happening for so long that it is not really new anymore.
There is a need for women to embrace a more universal form of spirituality. There is a need for women to simply acknowledge the fact that the traditional religions are not satisfying their spiritual needs. What is your spiritual need? Well, your spiritual need is growth, the growth in your consciousness, the raising of your consciousness. Part of it is that you come to a deeper understanding of life, of the spiritual side of life, of your own psychology. But it is more than understanding, it is the experience that you are shifting, that you are growing, that you are transcending yourself, that you are not the same person you were a few years ago. Millions upon millions of women today in America have that need. Many are not aware of it, many have not recognized it consciously, so they are not able to act on it. They seek something, they long for something, but they are not conscious of what it is.
You look at religion in America, and as everything else, naturally, religion has to change, because everything in society is in a process of changing. But who is going to change the religious landscape of America? Is it the men who have traditionally been in leadership of American churches? And what do the men do? They look to tradition, traditional values: “We have to maintain the institution the way it is, we have to actually protect the institution against change.”
Well, first of all, you cannot protect anything against change, because change is inevitable. But the point is that men are not as likely to drive a change in the religious, spiritual landscape of America, as women are. Women are far more likely to do this. And you could say that, well, this has been happening for decades in the New Age movement. Correct, it has. But there is a potential in this decade, that this can break through to a much higher level, where more and more women look for an alternative form of spirituality, find it, create it, embrace it. And this can again shift the equation in America, because these women, most of them, are in relationships with men of various kinds. And again, they can bring forth a balanced perspective. It is not a matter of converting people to a particular organization, or teaching, or guru. It is a matter of presenting people with a balanced view of religion and spirituality.
A new approach to religion and spirituality
Again, it is a matter of stepping back, looking at America, looking at how in many small American towns, you have a central square, and around that square are four individual churches, a Catholic church, an Evangelical, and a couple of others of various denominations, depending on where you are in the country. But it is quite common in smaller towns. And it is a matter of stepping back and looking at this and saying: “Each of these churches claim to be the only one that can secure your salvation. Here you have most of the small towns in America divided by several churches. There is a division right there, between those who claim to be Catholics and those who claim to be Baptists. And both of them are claiming that their church is the only one that can secure your salvation, and that those on the other church, on the other corner of the square are going to go to hell. What kind of a division does that create in American society? Is it any wonder that there is conflict? Is it any wonder that there is violence when there is this kind of division among people?” Women can step back and look at this and say: “Well, if you have several churches that each claim to be the only right one, how can we deal with this?”
Traditionally, you have picked one of them and said: “Yes, this is the right one, and all the others are of the devil.” But is there not another approach? How about saying: “Maybe every church that makes this claim to exclusivity is actually out of touch with the reality of spirituality.” What if they have all misunderstood something? What if these different Christian churches have misunderstood or overlooked the central message of Christ? They claim to be Christian, they claim to represent Christ. But what if their claim to exclusivity actually demonstrates that they have all missed the central message of Christ.
Unity as the central message of Christ
Which is what? Unity. Oneness, do unto others, love your enemies, do good to them that hate you and persecute you, inasmuch as you have done it unto least of these my little ones, you have done it unto me. Was not Christ’s essential message one of unity? Coming together, overcoming the differences. Look at the environment where Jesus appeared. Israel, you had the Jews, who looked down on everybody else. Why do you have the parable of the Good Samaritan? Because the Jews looked down upon the Samaritans and thought they could never do anything. But what does the parable say? Well, the Jews pass by the man, but the Samaritan was the one who helped him. He was the one who was in alignment with Christ.
Christ came to unite people. Who is it that divides people? Well, it is antichrist, is it not? What else would it be? When you claim to represent Christ, and at the same time you claim to be the exclusive church that can secure people’s salvation, do you really represent Christ? Or are you out of touch with the central message of Christ? And could we then not create a Christian Church that was unifying, rather than dividing? And who can do this other than women?
Finding unity through intuition
You need to understand a certain difference between women and men. The pope even mentioned it in his message to women, that they needed to use their intuition. Even the pope recognizes that women have better intuition than men. He does not take the consequence of this, but he has some recognition of this. Women have better intuition than men, because men are more in the linear mind that thinks in terms of differences. Intuition is a more holistic way of thinking that looks beyond the divisions and differences, looks at the bigger picture, looks at what unifies.
For men, it is difficult to ask the following question. Now, when you look at Jesus and Jesus’s time, what was the Jewish religion like at the time of Jesus? It was an exclusivist religion. It claimed that only Jews would be saved. And only those Jews who obeyed the religious authorities would be saved. All others would not, the Gentiles would not and the Jews who were not in alignment with the authorities would not be saved. Why did the Jewish religion persecute Jesus? Because he preached a different kind of salvation. He said: “It is not a matter of being a Jew. It is not only Jews that can enter the kingdom.” He also said: “You do not have to follow the outer religion in order to enter the kingdom. Why? Because the kingdom of God does not come with observation, following an outer religion. Because the kingdom of God is within you.” This is because the Kingdom of God is a state of consciousness.
This is a reasoning process that many women are capable of grasping intuitively, because it leads to a logical question. An intuitively logical question, not an analytically logical question. And the question is: “Does it make any sense that in order to enter heaven, which is beyond earth, you need an institution on earth?” Essentially, what Jesus was saying is, you do not need an institution on earth in order to enter heaven. Because what you need to do in order to enter heaven, or the kingdom of God, is to change your consciousness. To take in the life of Christ, to be alive with the Christ mind, rather than the consciousness of death, the consciousness of antichrist, what Jesus also called Satan.
Many men find it difficult to reason this way, because their analytical minds can so easily come up with arguments for this or that. But for many women, it is quite possible to make this intuitive leap and suddenly see: “But yes, Jesus was saying we do not need an institution on earth. We need to change our consciousness. What sense does it make that we allow these institutions on earth to divide us? Why should I not be able to talk to my neighbor just because she goes to another church? Why should we not be able to find some common approach to spirituality that unites us rather than divides us? Why should we not take ourselves beyond this divisive influence of these institutions?” Christianity in America is a divisive institution. Hardly any institution in America divides people more than Christianity.
Naturally, this means that Christianity also is a dualistic institution, black-and-white thinking, you are either with us or you are with the devil. You are either going with us to heaven, or you are going with the devil to hell. There is nothing in between here. When women begin to grasp that there is an alternative to this divisive thinking, even if they do not call it dualistic, or black-and-white thinking, this can be a major influence in America in terms of moving America beyond this divide that has been created.
Divisions cover up inequality in America
The division of Americans into factions really accelerated when the power elite was allowed to concentrate money in their hands. And it is because they know that what they are doing is going against the historical progress that America has made. You had the euphoric 20s, the roaring 20s, ending with the crash on Wall Street in 1929. You had the depression years in the 30s, but after the war, America got back on its upper track, where people were building greater and greater affluence, and it lasted through the 50s and 60s and into the 70s. But then the deregulation of the financial industry happened and the power elite knew that the only way they could really concentrate money in their own hands was taking it away from the people.
This means that you now have a large group of Americans who have, for a long time, perhaps even their entire adult lives, seen the possibility of improving their situation. But Americans would then have to, first of all, experience that this progress was coming to a halt. And then they would somehow have to be made to accept this. Because they could not fail to notice. They would have to somehow be made to accept this, and this is when the power elite started doing what they have always done, divide and conquer, dividing people into factions. What is the obvious division in American society, politically: Republicans and Democrats. You will notice that George Washington was very, very concerned about the creation of two parties, because he saw the potential of how it could become a polarized situation that divided people, so they could not communicate, could not cooperate across the middle.
This is the primary division that they have been using now for decades to divide the American people. They cannot come together and say: “Why is our standard of living being eroded? Why are we making less money? Why do we suddenly have to have both husband and wife work in order to afford a house, in order to afford what our parents considered a normal lifestyle, even though only the father was working?” This is not saying anything against women being in the workplace. But there was a time when a family could have a decent standard of living, have a house, with only one spouse working. And that is not the case anymore for most Americans.
Why is that? What has happened that we now need two incomes instead of one? It can only be because everything has become more expensive, or that the salaries have gone down, or a combination of both. But why is our government allowing this to happen, so that a small elite can become richer and richer, when they already have more than anybody could possibly need? What is America about? Is it about enriching a small elite beyond any human scale and human need? Or is it about fulfilling the human needs of all Americans so that all can have a decent standard of living? Are there other countries, democratic countries, where they have a better standard of living than in America? Then why do we not have it in America? Why do we not look at those countries and see what they have and what they have done, to limit this runaway train of the concentration of wealth in the hands of the elite?
Men can, of course, play a role in this, but again, women are more likely to be the ones who start from their own perspective and say: “Why is this happening? Why are we allowing it to happen? What can we do about it? How can we bring a more balanced perspective, so that we look out for the interests of all Americans?” This is again, humanity, the greater humanity rather than some far-flung idea of: Society should be according to Democratic ideals, or Societies should be according to Republican ideals. And therefore we can cooperate across the middle about making real changes that benefit all of the people of America.”