Consept

This is not true depending on what the woman earns of course. If you take america, a successful woman let's say is on 6 figures which is what Emerald said. The amount of men making similar is 9% of men in America, so if you're criteria includes them earning the same or more you've cut out 91% of all men. Then when you factor most men earning this will be 50 plus as it takes time to get to this level, if you're early 30s and would like a guy under 40 this is gonna be a really small pool. Also as I see on dating sites a lot of women will have other criteria, over 6 foot, in shape etc. This shrinks things even more. The point is because of your criteria that you're free to choose, your selection is smaller. If men don't have the same criteria then they have a wider selection.

How is it mens fault? Men are in that same context that you speak of, do you think men could ever make that choice in the past to not slave away all day to look after their family? It's no ones 'fault' it just is what it is and everyone has to play the cards they're dealt. Your position seems to be 'women aren't attracted to a guy that wants to be looked after by a woman because of how they've been throughout history. However men are wrong and are at fault for who they're attracted to despite how they've been throughout history'. Can you not see the incongruence with this position? I won't go as far as saying it's sexist but it's definitely not an equal view

It's not about wanting all women to tailor themselves for men, everyone is free to be who they are and others are free to desire that or not for a potential mate. Let's flip it for a second though, let's say a man says, 'you know what Im not going to work, my aim is for a woman to marry me and look after me financially and I'll help with the home. When we have kids ill look after them'. Now of course he's free to say this and some women maybe attracted to this but majority will not be and that's their right not to be. This man can't now say 'women are just scared of a caring, nurturing man, they're threatened, that's why no one wants to marry me', this would be a ridiculous stance but this seems to be the stance people have no problem taking the other way. Also if a man did say this a lot of women would agree and be like 'yeah that's really progressive', but I bet when it came to marrying or even dating that guy they'd start getting hesitant. This is also how men feel, of course we're for freedom of choice, but it doesn't mean men will marry someone who doesn't align with them. This is about taking responsibility, you can make whatever choices you want and you should but to say how others should react to your choices is an insane position.

Here's the thing that women have trouble accepting 'men don't care about your financial or career success', it's not a factor in us pursuing you. Everytime this subject is broached men are always gaslighted into thinking that's wrong, men and women are attracted to different things, it's very simple. What's happened is women are doing much better than guys academic wise and are outperforming them and achieving more, which is great, but the downside is the pool of men these women will accept as a partner is shrinking. Men may feel some intimidation but there's whole scores of men that wouldn't even be given a second thought. This is not mens fault. For men the more we earn and improve we become more attractive to women but it's not the same and women think it will be hence the dissapointment. Women generally are in their prime in terms of attractiveness in the 20s (according to majority of men) and men from about 35 to 50 when they're more of the finished article and have created a good foundation. It just works like this, I don't know why people get pissed about it

Thanks for the share my bro, I agree with pretty much everything you said. Yes current society is what it is, but i think what underpins what youve said is that those that can are taking advantage where they can. If we think of money as basically an exchange of value, there are some that are trying to take as much value as possible whilst giving very little. The example of the 08 crash is interesting because the banks were claiming they were giving value but in reality they were squeezing value out of the poorest people, its particularly underhanded because they were dangling the idea of owning your own house underneath them. But this is why its so important to understand money because you can see where people are trying to give you less value a mile away. btw and im guessing youll disagree, but this is why i think cryptos, at least some are going to have problems, because there isnt actually inherent value, its just people trying to get rich. You could argue cash is just as valueless but its aim isnt really to make people rich its just a way of spending value. Cryptos essentially are trying to replace or at least offer an alternative to cash but most are not seeing it like that atm. Also it would be unlikely that you get so many coins being used as a way of exchanging value in the future, likely one or two might but not all, so i think eventually if the value isnt taken out, a lot of people will lose out. Yeah this is needed because the poverty mindset is really ingrained and i think its really holding up a lot of peoples progression. What is this about? Great video and thats what conscious business is about, setting up win/win situations and deals. If i offer you something you want why would you not go for it?

This is the problem, who is the arbiter of what Jesus teachings are perversions? Is it you? Im not stuck on that, you brought up the quotes to prove your point but when i offered the full quote or context of it, you dismissed it and said the teachings are wrong or perverted, this is close, if not is, a fundamentalist mindset. You have some truth in what you say but the way youve said it is clearly not the best. This is fine in that yes material doesnt compare with being, its not even close. However to say its worthless is a poor take, for most people to even get to being or spirituality there needs to be a foundation that allows it through resources but also through relationships, through experience of the material, through purpose, through contribution to society. It would be very difficult for an undeveloped, homeless person to become enlightened, thats the other side of the coin. Oshos views are quite interesting on the subject -

This is a slight misquote, the quote is actually -"If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” Notice he said 'if you want to be perfect'. His teaching has always been man can not be perfect only God can. So it doesn't seem as if he's saying sell your possessions. This misunderstanding , as @Wilhelm44pointed out, is part of the reason why so many have an aversion to money or think it's anti spiritual. There is also debate on the camel quote, a lot of people say he was talking about either a rope going through the eye of a needle or theres pathway that goes between to large cliff faces, which is a narrow passage, and so it's hard for a camel to get through. The key thing is that both are not impossible, it can just be harder to do. But of course I might be wrong, but the point is that teaching are open to interpretation so it can become troublesome when they are followed as the highest truth, especially when they appear to give rules on how humans should think and feel.

Interesting, so do you think passages like this have led to money being looked at negatively by some or what is your interpretation? I also think the classic quote from the bible 'the love of money is the root of all evil' has probably had an effect particularly as its often mis-translated as 'money is the root of all evil'

The motive or intention of the thread is to highlight something thats not often talked about in spiritual communities and challenge underlying assumptions that i think some people have. A lot of threads ive seen recently from younger people are along the lines of 'money and material stuff is so toxic stage orange and i want to bypass it through meditation', i wanted to open up a discussion on the counter side of that and offer a different viewpoint, as i think the viewpoint i mentioned can be unhelpful although im open to be challenged on that. If we are looking at the whole its important to look at all sides. What was your intention in posting your first response?

Yeah thats fine we're all the one and every perspective is fragmentation of the whole that we're all attached to. Thats cool but in terms of having a discussion amongst different, albeit illusory, perspectives, it kinda stifles the conversation as you could bring that in to any conversation or talking points. Of course there is value in not even talking and realising this but then it makes the forum redundant, so if we are going to engage in a forum dynamic different viewpoints are kind of the point

Ive seen quite a few examples on this forum and in general. Are you saying no spiritual people see making money as a negative? Seems quite a blanket statement but im open to your perspective

I agree on this and with your post in general. I think there does seem to be at the core bad beliefs about money amongst the general public, either they spend it as fast as they can or they think its wrong to make it or have a lot. But youre right its a real shame that a lot of people who are at least interested in higher consciousness view making money as negative. If you follow the spiral dynamics chart or even maslows hierarchy of needs, the ability to gather resources is a foundational component of self actualisation. @Raptorsin7 Its true if youre ok with having less you dont need money to buy things, but of course that money could be used for starting up positive businesses and giving people jobs or donating or just helping family and also becoming a role model for others to counter act the typical view of a rich person. There does seem to be a lot of spiritual bypassing of this area as you say as well

Its more of a conversation starter to get some opinions, if i cared i wouldnt have a podcast about making money lol

I see this a lot where people want a 'better' life and as you've framed it, that means going out with friends, doing fun stuff, not being in your head etc. What you're trying to do is to not have to deal with getting better at this stuff through spiritually bypassing the need for it. In my experience this can kinda work but what you'll find is even if you do this successfully, unaddressed issues will rear their head. What you need to do is the hard work of sorting out traumas and mental blocks, then you need to actually do the physical work of improving the areas of your life you want to improve ie finances, relationships, social etc. These are do able things but require work. Your current strategy seems to be 'become mindful and enlightened and everything will be perfect'. While that can be true for some it won't be for most, so get going on some tangible things and the rest will come. Moreover you can still practice mindfulness whilst doing the material stuff.

I got the Pfizer one a couple of weeks ago. No real issues but my arm was quite painful and sore for about 2 days after.

I agree with you, i guess the question is how do you talk about these things without one, creating some kind of polarisation if people dont like what youre presenting and two, you yourself across as youre 'for' one or the other side? Ive noticed this isnt exclusive to this topic though, any discussion entered where people have a strong attachment to one side of something, it almost drags you into the binary 'if you dont agree with me youre against me'. I would say i try my best to be objective, look at facts and take on the other persons perspective, but i also know its very easy to get drawn into these polarised position, even when i dont really have any tie to the particular topic.

If that was the case no one would have a holistic view as no one can experience everything. Experience is important but obviously you have to do things like perspective taking, looking at research, hearing people talk about their experiences etc. If you're trying to make sense of things having a one track view is not going to help with that. Men do say bad things sometimes and it's usually shot down by Leo or other people as it's toxic incel mindsets. Your take is part of the picture but think about incels, they could also say the exact same thing, in their experience they always get rejected by girls and they see these alpha male types getting all the girls and girls are shallow. From their perspective this is 100% true but does it really give any context or understanding to male/female relations? No not really, this is the same if you take a dogmatic view on the other side. (not saying yours is as toxic as incels)

Huh?

@Preety_India do you see potential issues with having an unbalanced view? For example you said women that approach guys are exploited for sex, treated badly, rejected etc, now this could be part of the picture, but it's definitely not the whole picture, however you've said it like it's very common and the reason that women don't approach men. You could take a more holistic view and say approaching is difficult across the board, for example even a good looking guy who's good at talking to women would only get a hit rate (number, date etc) of around 10% from cold approaching women, so meaning if he approached 100 women only 10 would show a good level of interest. I could easily say women are bad, they always reject you and lie to you that they gave a boyfriend or whatever, or I can look at it like that's just how it is. If I did say women are bad I could also paint it as that's my opinion and it's what I see and women can improve from what I'm saying because I don't want to sugar coat things. Do you see the problem? Your opinion, in this case, is like taking something that happens (generously) 5% of the time and saying people should act as if it happens all the time and put judgement on a whole group of people based on this opinion.

@Preety_India would you say you have quite a negative opinion of men?

Everyone would have to transcend their individual ego and think in at least a world centric way, which is probably 1000 plus years away

Alan Watts had a quote that I'll probably butcher as I can't remember, but it was along the lines of, the first person will make a statement, the second will disagree and the third will say that they should be above arguing. It's all ego games and I guess there's nothing wrong with them it just is good to be aware of your own games and what you do. And yes giving advice on this could be one upmanship as well as claiming I'm aware of what I'm doing, it really can go on forever lol.

I accept what you say, I think where your coming from is that this dynamic does happen but there are reasons for women selecting a guy based on wealth, status or education that are logical considering what the woman wants. So its not as shallow as just selecting for that its more about how they would fit considering the womans socio-economic position, if these can be worked out with the man being lower than potentially it could work. I agree with this, i didnt mean to simplify the reasoning, obviously the statement from op is a simple way of saying it, the reasonings people use for getting to that conclusion is different thing. We are switching to a world where women will eventually have as much money and status if not more than men and thats cool but the rub is that traditionally men of higher status have never had a problem with dating women who are lower, or who make less or who are less educated, they have focused on other things, including looks but also co-operation, peaceful nature, femininity etc. Women who are highly educated and high earning do have a problem with dating someone lower status or lower earning, even if the reasoning is they need someone who can keep up with them or they need someone they can look up to or whatever it is, in general women dont go for men lower value than them, the research is pretty clear on this. If they did there wouldnt be much problem, theyd definitely find someone but the reason they dont is because of their standards, so something has to give if they want to get married, either they drop their standards or the look at what a man of a standard they desire wants and try and fulfil that. Theres a lot of research that says the most happy marriages are when a man is earning and a woman is looking after the home, much more than when theyre both earning the same or the woman is earning or when the man is a house husband (although this is the next happiest situation). Now there could be cultural reasons or conditioning behind this i dont know, but thats what the research says. - https://theconversation.com/most-couples-are-less-satisfied-when-the-woman-earns-more-131659 The problem with the old school mentality was women werent given a choice, obviously thats wrong but now that there is a choice it doesnt necessarily guarantee happiness, as you say its a cultural limbo

@intotheblack good vid BTW, I agree with pretty much everything he said

It is stage orange yes but remember higher stages usually incorporate lower stages not completely jump, also this dynamic would've been the same throughout human history, from purple to orange and above. Women can be more picky yes but the problem is majority them (according to the research) will not 'settle' for someone lower in education and/lower in income. So they wouldn't even consider someone in this bracket to even build a connection with. This is fine but as they become higher earners the pool of men that fit into an 'acceptable' bracket shrinks, meaning they would have the choice of 'settling' or dying alone. If it were just about connection and not income this would not be an issue. You will get men who are intimidated by success of a woman but many will be rejected before it even gets to that. This is all fine, but I think what men get pissed at is the women that complain that there are no good men around, when in reality their criteria for good men doesn't include majority of men.