Emerald

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.

What is your rationale here?

I started doing the "be like Jesus" thing that she mentioned when I was 12 to cope with my home and school situation. I decided to model my personality after Jesus, the Buddha, my dad, Bob Marley, and other such non-reactive men. It was the first thing that ever made me feel a sense of power over my environment. It was like a kind of mental Judo where my non-reactivity would lead me out of harm's way and into feelings of superiority. So, I came to the conclusion back then that I was "more enlightened" than others... both kids my own age and adults. And I was really fed by how non-reactive I could be. So, whenever a person would go over my boundaries (as would often happen at that juncture in time), I would relish in the fact that the blow didn't land on me because I was like water. And also that I was a stronger person than others because I didn't even flinch when bad things happened. And I would look for pain simply to show how I could handle it. This pain-seeking to prove that I was more masculine/non-reactive was even there when I was 10. It wasn't until years later, at age 20, when I got my first glimpses of transcendence that I was able to recognize all the self-deceptions that went into creating that "more enlightened" persona. And then I had trouble because I could no longer use that coping mechanism in innocence. This pattern still exists in me as it was created to cope with traumas and unmet needs. I'm just a bit more skeptical of it than before. But then I get into this struggle again, and the skepticism toward that aspect becomes the same coping strategy. And it leads me into lots of doubt and then that doubt means that I can never feel certainty about anything. And this comfort zone of uncertainty leads me genuinely into deeper and more accurate truths about things, and then the pattern continues. But ultimately, this aspect of myself is looking to get out from under feelings of inferiority and unimportance. And it reveals a deeper need to connect to the higher self... which is inherently empowered and expressive.

Usually only 5-10% of the subscriber base tunes in. This is the norm for YT channels.

I’ve never even been a woman on dating apps, so maybe I don’t know the territory. But I have a couple male friends (who are below average in attractiveness with not much game) who get dates on dating apps. I’ve also been the friend of a woman while she chats with guys on dating apps. And the guys were okay looking (like 6s) in my assessment. My point is that I’m not apt to take it personally and will feel more comfortable taking risks than a guy who might have his ego on the line and who might feel the sting of rejection more acutely.

This illustrates it precisely.

The main goal of my interactions on this section of the forum is to give a more accurate picture of the female bias/agenda. Too many misconceptions about how women actually feel and a misunderstanding of what women are really wanting in a man at the deepest level. I’m a huge advocate of letting the deep feminine bias be known. Men’s stories about it may serve their agenda, but the stories are inaccurate and incomplete. So, I want men to know the truth of what the female sexual bias/agenda actually is. But most men aren’t interested in the truth of our perspective. They’re interested only in what has worked for them. But truth and practicality are different things. The stories that men superimpose upon female sexuality work similar to how nature myths worked... where the people in a given village/tribe would notice a natural phenomenon and place a story upon it to demystify and explain it. This helped them feel more in control of that natural phenomenon. For example, a tribe may notice that it rains and not know why it rains. So, instead of having a clear understanding of the precipitation cycle, they have a simplified and self-centric story of ‘there’s a God in the clouds and he’s crying tears of joy as a gift to us to water our crops. So, we must give gifts to God in the form of sacrifice to get God to cry the tears of joy.” This is what men do in relation to female sexuality, which is a force of nature that they don’t yet understand and thus feel out of control of. And the nature-myth men tell themselves is an understandable distortion. I can see why men believe what they believe. But it is functionally a nature myth about female sexuality. It may work as a functional understanding for your purposes and agenda. But it isn’t true. Just the same way that the ‘crying God’ myth used to understand the rain might be helpful to the tribes-people for their purposes and agenda and to feel more in control of their fate, but it isn’t true. And I’m the person here with the scientific understanding of the precipitation cycle. And I want you to understand the precipitation cycle because that’s what’s actually true. And knowing what’s true (instead of just what’s practical) will free you from enslavement to the image of the crying God. You can still use the myth for practical purposes.... but it won’t consume and rule your life any longer. You won’t be at the mercy of a false idea once you realize the idea isn’t true. Now, the ‘crying God’ metaphor may be more useful to you than the truth behind the precipitation cycle in many situations. But it doesn’t make the ‘crying God’ metaphor an accurate reflection of what’s really going on. And the female bias is toward intimacy. If men don’t understand us, we don’t get what we need. Period. So, understanding the precipitation cycle may not feel relevant to the tribes-people. But in order to go deeper, you must get a more accurate view of what’s happening.

He’s a very aesthetically pleasing man, for sure. And his expressions are sexy because of the nice warm smile and relaxed appearance. But you can only really tell if a man’s attractive to you when he’s in motion. It’s the sound of his voice, his gestures, his level of alertness, and his character that will determine how attractive he is to a given woman. This same guy’s looks would tank by several points if his personality were unattractive.

This is a great point too. You need non-sexual channels for that libidinal energy.

Explore into what @SamC about the Anima. This can create a strong attraction to women that leads into chasing mirages. Otherwise, it’s really important for couples to have these conversations. It would be unrealistic to expect no feelings to ever come up toward anyone else. The main thing is holding space for each other’s feelings.