Emerald

The Feminine Principle is an archetype of femininity that can be found in similar symbols and associations throughout a variety of cultures and eras. Even the word Feminism has a touch of this wisdom. It isn’t called “womanism” because it isn’t all about women. It also has to do with allowing men to connect to their feminine side. Once you experience Divine Feminine, you will understand that each wave of Feminism that has been and currently is is all about leading society into a space where the deep Feminine can become integrated and the reverence for Mother Nature can be once again recognized and honored by humanity. And this is true even as Feminists and anti-Feminists alike are in the process of unfolding it.

Please do.

ACTUALLY, she has an infinite amount of penises... ya dummy.

There are constructions that exist for sure. Gender norms are certainly constructs. And yes, Yin and Yang are two sides to the same coin... each intonation of either energy containing a universe of both Yin and Yang in them. So, if you went into the Yang side of a Yin/Yang symbol, you’d find an entire universe full of Yin and Yang signs as these two energies are never separate. In that more absolute regard, everyone and everything is infinitely Yin and infinitely Yang. But from the human-centric perspective, you have social construct and you have the relative expression of Yin and Yang which are very different from one another. And these are important to parse. Just like how ideas of up/down and big/small are only relevant from the relative human perspective. There is nothing inherently big or small just in the same way that nothing is inherently more Yin or Yang in the absolute sense. But it doesn’t mean that these more human-centric perspectives aren’t important perspectives to look from. If we ignored the observable difference between up and down, as human beings and said “Up and down is just a construct. There is no true up and down.” we run the risk of falling off a cliff. So, even though Yin and Yang in people is infinite on the absolute level. From the relative level, men tend to display more Yang traits and women more Yin traits as their natural set-point. It’s kind of like how the number 2 and 2 million are both equally close to infinitely. From the infinite perspective, these numbers might as well be the same. But on the relative perspective, there are real differences between those numbers.

Have you seen Leo’s new video? I personally have not. But there is nothing in @Leo Gura‘s viewpoints that he’s shared hence-forth that would make me think he shares your view on this.

It’s an observable pattern. Usually, when people are invested in the idea that there are no natural differences between men and women, they are doing so for deep seated personal/emotional reasons. For example, plenty of women (especially in earlier waves of Feminism) would deny any differences between men and women because they associated femininity with repressive gender norms and their own oppression. And this person, understandably may come into resistance to their own femininity and anything associated with it. For example, that person may come into resistance to motherhood because of its association with oppressive gender norms... even if that person would otherwise want children. Or one that was common in my childhood was for little girls to hate the color pink (which is only culturally seen as feminine... and is not inherently feminine). And it never reflected their actual feelings about the color pink itself. There was just a resistance to anything associated with femininity because of femininity’s association with weakness/lameness within the culture. And there are many Shadow-based reasons for a person to come into resistance to recognizing natural differences that generally exist between men and women.

Yes, repression of the opposite energy can and does happen when someone conforms to gender norms. But resistance to gender norms can also do the same thing. True freedom from gender norms can’t be found in conforming to nor rebelling from them... as the reference point for either reaction is the gender norm. So, a conformist says, “What do the gender norms say?” And then they follow them. A rebel says, “What do the gender norms say?” And then they do the opposite to what they say. A person with an accurate and integrated view of polarity says “What do I feel is right in this situation?” And they don’t even consider gender roles. If a person is committed to the notion of gender neutrality, they can repress and avoid awareness of their primary energy out of a sense of resistance to gender roles. And to not notice general differences in gender/sex is a symptom of resistance to gender roles.

This happens to men sometimes. It’s not anything you did or didn’t do. I know those questions can come up when it happens, but it very likely doesn’t have to do with you.

You can’t learn this from courses and books. You have to have direct experience of your signature to know. Once you experience it, you’ll see what’s in you.

Everyone has a unique Yin/Yang signature underneath all conditioning. Everyone has both of these energies. But if you put a group of 1000 men together, their collective signature will be mostly Yang with a little bit of Yin. The same is true in reverse for women. So, while gender norms and conditioning are socially constructed, the Yin/Yang signature is not. And if someone is conforming to gender norms, they will suppress their natural Yin/Yang signature. BUT likewise, if someone is rebelling against gender norms and has resistance to anything socially constructed around gender... they will also suppress their natural Yin/Yang signature. This is the trap I fell into when I was believing all of gender/sex was socially constructed. And this is the trap you’re falling into. You may try to make yourself 50/50... when your ratio is probably more to one side or the other.

You’re claiming that differences in gender are socially constructed. So, perhaps you believe that the Tao has nothing to do with innate qualities within gender and sex. But I can tell you that it very much does. Either that, or you’re holding contradictory viewpoints.

Link the story to me then, where Lilly Singh is arguing for equality of outcome... where she wants all YouTubers to make the same amount of money.

Who in your life has been telling you that you have to follow these norms? Keep in mind that you’re talking to a person who diverges from gender norms quite regularly. But I used to believe the same thing as you do when I was a teenager. And this led me to repress my feminine side. Then, I had my awakenings at 20, and in my subtlety of awareness, I recognized an energy I could only describe as feminine. And it was in the trees and plants... and in me too. And I recognized that, in my views that gender was purely a social construct, that I had constricted my awareness of so much of myself as so much of me was feminine that I’d forgotten about. That which is gender-neutral within a patriarchal society (like ours) will always be masculine. So, to be gender-neutral is truly to embody the masculine and banish the feminine. Most people denying differences in gender don’t realize that they’re doing that. But it is what happens.

We’re you raised in a situation where you were required to adhere to strict gender norms? I can notice a general difference between women and men... but also not feel required to adhere to gender norms. There is a distinction between gender/sex and gender norms. Gender norms are rules around how you should/shouldn’t act. You don’t have to follow any of those rules at all... even if you let yourself notice the general differences.

I didn’t say that’s why you specifically think that. It’s just the most common reason why people deny general differences between men and women. Freedom from gender roles could be your motive for cognitive dissonance around this issue. It’s another common one. You feel like even noticing any distinction between men and women will trap you in a gender role. It won’t. But you fear that. The more interesting question is why you feel that acknowledging general differences will trap you. Were you raised in a really repressive religious background?

And we’re wired 96% the same as Chimpanzees DNA-wise. Even a percentage of difference can account for many natural divergences.

For one, there are exceptions to this rule. So, people acknowledge the existence of the LGBT community and other non-gender conforming people and extrapolate that this invalidates the general differences between men and women. Or they fear that acknowledging the generalities will somehow invalidate non-gender conforming people. So, that’s one. Or a person can believe that human beings were born as a Tabula Rasa and that a person’s personality is 100% shaped by external forces. This is someone with a worldview that skews far more towards nurture in the “nature vs nurture” argument. But ultimately, why you see most people having resistance to acknowledging general differences between men and women... is because they subconsciously believe masculinity is superior to femininity. So, to acknowledge that men and women are different and that men are inherently more masculine as a general rule is to acknowledge that women are inferior in their deep-down assessment as they see masculinity as better and femininity as worse. And usually men and women in this mindset are Feminists of some kind... dealing with their misogynistic shadow. The antidote to this is to genuinely appreciate the feminine perspective.

The way I define religion is this... An intellectual framework for understanding how reality works or an aspect of reality works that may or may not be reflective of the underlying reality. Everyone has a religion. Religions may or may not be spiritual. Most people are unconscious of the full extent of their religion because most people take their religion for granted. They are like fish in water. So, the answer is yes... gender identity can be part of someone’s religion. But the answer is no, in the sense that it’s no more or less a religion than 99% of the beliefs human beings hold. Edit: Also, underneath the “religion” projected onto gender/sex in the form of gender norms, there is real difference. There are exceptions to the rule. But in 80%+ of people, you’re going to find that there are real biological and energetic differences between men and women.

So, do you consume animal products in the same way that indigenous people did? And do you think Vegans have a worse relationship to animals than those who get their meat and dairy products sourced from factory farms? And also, if you don’t get your meat and dairy the way indigenous people did, what makes you err on the side of participating in factory farming?

That isn’t arguing for equality of outcome. She’s NOT arguing that all YouTubers should make the same amount of money. That’s noticing an inequality in a particular industry, and extrapolating that there may be deeper prejudices in society or within Youtube as a company (perhaps with its algorithm) causing that inequality. She’s expecting that, if everything in the system of society or YouTube as a company lacks corruption and runs fairly, that you wouldn’t have such an extreme disparity in gender of the top earning YouTubers. And therefore, if there is a disparity, then this must be an indication of bigger issues within the system in question. She’s not arguing that all YouTubers should make the same amount of money. And she isn’t saying that we need to take money away from the top earning male YouTubers and give it to women. And she’s not arguing that YouTube or the government need to go in and give women extra money to make it so that women are making just as much. She’s just pointing out a disparity and attributing it to deeper issues in the system. That’s what stage Green is about.

I usually get one like every ten views or so within the first days after posting as my subscriber base is tuning in. So, about 10%. Then, with the general population, it goes down to about 1 in 15. But it’s never been at 1-2%. Yet again, I just have around 50,000 subs. So, maybe larger channels have a lower like to view ratio.

You quoted me as saying that. But it was @aurum I was curious about his rationale.

I’ve never heard a Feminist (or anyone on the left even) argue for “equality of outcome”. So, what must be understood here is that JP is straw manning the left to give himself an easy and unpopular argument to slap down. Next to no one (left or right) believes in complete equality of outcome. Public figures on the right of the political spectrum (like JP) often use this tactic to misrepresent people on the left’s views and hearten people to their views by contrast. From the stage Green perspective, Feminists and Leftists in general will point to inequalities between people of different demographics as SYMPTOM of deeper structural problems within the collective. Where stage Orange and below will have different views. For example, if we notice the statistic that black people are nearly three times more likely to be shot by the police than white people are... A stage Green person will say “What collective issues within society is this a symptom of?” It sees the issues faced by individual trees within a forest as indicative of deeper issues within the structure of the forest. But a stage Orange person will say either, “It’s that individual black person’s fault.” Or they’ll say, “It’s the individual cop’s fault. There’s a few bad apples in the system.” And a stage Blue person will skew collective like Green but they’ll say, “Of course black people get shot more often by the cops. Black people are just worse than white people as a collective.” So, when JP says that Feminists and others on the left are arguing for equality of outcome he’s giving a bastardized and uncharitable distortion of that perspective. So, instead of recognizing that the argument is “Hey, we noticed that there is a substantial pay gap between men and women. So, this may be indicative of some collective issues with sexism within the greater system that must be addressed.” He says, “The left wants everyone to make the same amount of money, period.” And that just isn’t true... especially because the type of Feminists that stand most for this perspective tend to be Capitalist-leaning. It’s that people in stage Green are noticing that patterns within the trees may indicate a deeper issue with the forest. And if there is an inequality, then we should regard that as a red flag and explore the roots of that inequality to find out if there’s any deeper systemic and structural issues within society at large. Also, Feminists are not a monolith. There’s a great diversity in Feminist thought, and there’s a ton of in- fighting. The same thing is true with Leftists. So, there’s also that problem with the way JP frames the left. So, I second what Leo said. Read some stage Green stuff about Intersectional Feminism. You’ll get a feel for what the actual perspective is... instead of what JP and others straw man it as.

Yeah, I think it’s mostly because there is a strong cultural under-current that says logic/rationality is always more wise than intuition/emotion. So, if a person can come up with a rational truth, they will often use that rational truth to invalidate the more emotional truth. And rationalization can be a very sneaky self-deception mechanism. And this topic is particularly prone to this because the emotional truth is VERY unpleasant to observe. And it’s kind of like opening Pandora’s Box. Once you really let yourself be emotionally aware of your true feelings about animal suffering, you can’t go back to innocence and convince yourself that you don’t feel the way you actually feel. Once you eat of the tree of knowledge, you can’t go back into the blind bliss of paradise. This is why you find a lot of avoidance relative to this topic. A great many people (probably most) have Vegan feelings/values... and they don’t want to become aware of how they’ve been living out of alignment with those feelings/values. And all the negative feelings about that disalignment have been underneath the surface... until a major shift happens. When I went Vegan 5 years ago, in the first couple weeks, I had to face a lot of negative feelings rising to the surface once the rationalizations and cognitive dissonance around animal product consumption no longer needed to exist. Also, the feeling of powerlessness in relation to how meager my capacity to effect change is in relation to this issue was rough to deal with. If a person really wants to know the truth about how they feel about factory farming, I recommend watching Earthlings. If you watch with an open mind and heart, it will show you what your feelings and values ACTUALLY are, up underneath the rationalizations.

Veganism can certainly be an ideology too. But ideology is useful sometimes. Ideology is basically a form of mental technology that we invent in order to look at the world from a particular perspective. Ideology is a lens. And all major shifts in consciousness come to the masses in the form of ideology. The problems come in when a person gets attached to one ideology and can’t see beyond it.... aka being ideological.