Emerald

I just went through and watched some more of her videos and she’s mostly pretty even handed in most videos I’ve seen. These are patterns that can be noticed in society. That said, I have seen other clips prior where she’s really anti-woman in her perspective and you can notice the pandering much stronger. But no, being concerned about men’s issues is not misogynistic as long as it’s not done for the sake of invalidating women’s issues.

This type of thing has been going on for a long time. It’s not a new phenomenon. I was doing this 20 years ago way back in 5th grade at age 10-11. Girls/women will often hate on other women and pander to boys/men in order to feel more desirable and powerful. It’s a coping strategy for internalized misogyny. So, understand that she actually wants the gender war because she uses it to cope with her traumas. Her goal is to tell men exactly what they want to hear and to be perceived as an ally in the gender war, so that she can feel valuable by proving to men that she is superior and more desirable compared to other women. If there’s no more gender war, she won’t be able to have a medium through which to project out her internalized misogyny onto other women. That means she’d have to face with her own self-hatred. A woman who hates women, hates herself. So, the only way she can keep herself from realizing that she hates herself is to define herself as being in a different category from all other women. Hence the reason why she tries so hard to be accepted by men and tries so hard to dispossess herself of being perceived in the same light as other women. So if the gender war weren’t there, she wouldn’t have an outlet to sooth her wounds of self-hatred by manipulating men into giving her praise for being “one of the good ones”.

Yin and Yang as subtle polar qualities/energies that can be observed when you’re in a state of sensitivity to them. As far as evidence, I can’t provide you any. It’s something you can discover in your own subjective experience. The closest thing to evidence I can give you is the similarities across cultures and eras in naming things in relation to one phenomenon or another. For example, there are typically Sky Gods and Earth Goddesses. The elements of air and fire are associated with masculinity and Yang while the elements of Earth and water are associated with feminine... hence Mother Earth and why the word matter is rooted in the latin word for mother. But these things can be directly experienced, and certain insights arise from those experiences. And one such insight is that while these qualities can be observed as distinct dichotomies, from a certain vantage point they can be recognized as two sides to the same coin. The way I speak about them are metaphorical for the sake of understanding. So, the Zooming in and finding more and more Yin and Yang symbols is a metaphor that these subtle polar energies are Always interplaying no matter how microcosmic or macrocosmic the scale becomes. So, every atom has an interplay between Yin and Yang. So, because you can always go smaller and more Zoomed in and because you can always go bigger and more Zoomed out... the scale is is infinitely big and infinitely small. And so, we are all infinitely masculine and infinitely feminine in that regard. But from the human perspective, you can notice a propensity to skew more in one direction or another. So, it’s a bit of a paradox. Just like how the number 10 is bigger than the number 1... but they are both the same distance away from being infinite.

Here's what I mean by why I question her motives...

These are definitely patterns that can be noticed. Men have a lot of (often arbitrary and harmful) expectations placed upon them. There is particularly an expectation to compete on some random patriarchal hierarchy and to always be strong and suppress their emotions. I don't envy men for this. It's harder for men to grow themselves emotionally and psychologically because so many circles still expect men to just "man up" and bottle their emotions. And men are also viewed as being somehow less precious of a life than women and children. On top of this, men will often police other men's masculinity. So, it is no surprise that the male suicide rate is so high. So, I mostly agree with her perspective on men as I have noticed these patterns. However, men do have many advantages over women in terms of the power structures in society as they have high expectations projected upon them instead of low expectations projected upon them like women do. But it is these same high expectations that put men in a situation where they must hide their vulnerability, thus leaving them with a disadvantage in relation to their inner life. Now, as far as critique goes... because of her making this a "man vs woman" thing, I question her motives. And I've seen references to her in other videos where there's a lot of pro-man/anti-woman sentiments. And it is clear to me that she has some issues with feminine repression and internalized misogyny. I suspect that she gets a feeling of power out of being a loophole woman that isn't like the other girls. And if you go on videos like this with women sharing these videos that are sympathetic to men and that are anti-sympathetic to women or anti-feminist, you'll find cadres of men praising/worshipping them in the comments. When I was a child/teen, I used to do some version of the same thing, where I'd say that men have it worse than women and that women are worse than men and guys would gush over me. And I felt like I could have more power in the situation that way by appealing to guys. And it was something that made it possible for me to feel like I was an honorary guy and feel like I was escaping being like a girl... like I was going to be seen in a different light from all other women and escape the fate of being a member of the weaker sex. And it also, in my jealousy and misogyny towards other girls, made me feel more desirable than them because I'd get more positive male attention. It's like I could view myself in a special category of my own where I could deny my girlhood and identify more with the perspective of maleness to avoid being trashed on and disempowered for being a girl. I had internalized misogyny and saw women as inferior to men, and so I could do this to escape my own judgments of inferiority by seeing myself in a different category from other girls/women all together. Like there were three gender designations: men, women, and Emerald. And this lead me to repress my femininity and to exaggerate my masculinity. I wanted so desperately to be a girl that wasn't a girl. And this lead to a lot of deep wounds around my feminine side. So, I look at this woman, and I see myself where I was half my life ago with my own internalized misogyny. And a response to disempowerment and trying to feel like queen among men, where I would be able to distance myself from the inferior gender that I didn't want to see myself as and to ally myself with what I saw as the superior gender. And then I could impress guys with my feminine charms and masculine sympathies and have the power to make them respect me... leaving me superior to women and a true equal to men, but with the added benefit of being aesthetically female. I could be a man on the inside and thus superior personality-wise and a woman and the outside and thus superior... like a man wrapped up in a prettier package. All of this to escape my self-hatred, feelings of inferiority, and internalized misogyny. But yes, she is correct with what she's saying. Men do experience that. But I suspect she wouldn't be willing to accept that the roots of male disposability are patriarchal expectations... the same thing that creates her very own internalized misogyny.

Teal Swans perspective is based in the path of integration as opposed to the path of transcendence. So, perhaps you resonate more with the transcendental path. But I find there can be lots of Shadows with the transcendental path where a person undertakes that path to escape and spiritually bypass their humanity.., including emotions, psychology, traumas, and relationships. The integrative path, however, integrates the paths of transcendence and embodiment... like a tree that stretches its roots deeper into the ground as it stretches its branches higher into the sky. It could be just a resonance thing. But it may be helpful to suss out any avoidant tendencies that may be keeping you in resistance to integration.

That’s not a reflection on what she’s saying or the accuracy of it. That’s more about your feelings towards her personality and the traits your mind projects onto her because of her vibe. So, for me to take your perspective seriously on Teal Swan’s videos, you’ll actually have to listen to her perspective and form an actual viewpoint on the content. I’m more than happy to hear what you have to say. And no one’s perspective is perfect. But calling her perspective pathetic when you haven’t actually heard her perspective and putting the facepalm emoji, has a lot more to do with you and how Teal Swan makes you feel than it does with the validity/ truth of her perspective. But yet, you listen to Leo. His vibe is arrogant, narcissistic, and very prickly. But that doesn’t mean that his perspective isn’t rooted in truth. So, if someone tried to invalidate Leo’s perspective because of his vibe, would you think that that person is making good points? I should hope not.

It can’t be just vibe related. That’s more related to her personality and not to the content of what she says. I am off-put by her vibe also. But her content is so clear, deep, and accurate. It’s often that she shares something and it makes me realize realities that had been staring me in the face that I just never looked at. She may be self-aggrandizing and Shadowy. But she is accurate and holistic in her perspective.

What specifically about what she shared is false? And what is your rationale for saying that? I’m more than willing to hear you out, but you have to support your stance for me to give your POV any credence.

@Samuel Garcia @ZeroInfinity @Gesundheit I find that a lot of people see humanity as something to get rid of. Since we’re on a Teal Swan related thread anyway, perhaps this video will be helpful in regards to recognizing the issues with thinking that enlightenment “cures” someone of certain aspects of human nature. She just posted it as a throwback on her Facebook, and I thought it was pretty synchronistic given our conversation. Mind you, I’ve not seen it yet. Will watch it now. But resistance to humanity can cause a lot of issues.

We are all self-focused. I’ve already said this a bunch of times throughout the thread. Self-focus is a feature of being a human animal. You can observe this. It’s impossible to get away from self-focus. But the word “selfishness” has a loaded connotation to it that adds certain ideas onto the phenomenon of self-focus that are distortional and/or not actually there. It peppers the reality of self-focus with a lot of projected notions. Also, I never claimed not to have my own biases. Every person does. But a person who is emotionally mature and intellectually rigorous will be able to both honor their own bias AND honor and understand the perspectives and biases of others. And furthermore they will be able to distinguish bias from truth. They will be able to hold space for many perspectives. And this is at the root of why I tend to reiterate women’s biases on here because space isn’t being held for that bias. It is treated like a zero sum game where, if women win that men somehow lose. And that’s a very non-holistic viewpoint. So, it is most beneficial to share under-represented and misrepresented perspectives and biases when certain perspectives and biases dominate. And that’s because it opens up the air for a more holistic and conscious conversation around human sexuality than is currently being had here. Can you be specific at where you saw me claiming that we’re not self focused or claiming that I didn’t have my own biases? What I said is that focusing only from one angle on this topic is a reductive way to look at it. And I never invalidated anyone else’s bias or perspective for that matter... unless the person was sharing an outright falsehood.

Femininity and clinginess don’t always go together. But if what you’re calling “clinginess” is just the drive for emotional intimacy, then yes... you’ll have a very hard time finding a woman who is feminine and in touch with that femininity who isn’t looking for emotional depth and intimacy. Clinginess in the other hand is a symptom of anxious attachment and fear of abandonment. And this can be experienced by both men and women. So, it would be unwise to characterize a women in her healthy orientation as being clingy. You will miss the actual experience of truly experiencing the feminine.

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you clarify?

I understand that. I quite enjoy sparring. With the misogyny and sexism part, though it may not be stated explicitly in these posts, I do see that that's part of what's at the root of his defensive behavior. Misogyny is a way to cope with fears and insecurities relative to women and femininity. And generally, the more fearful a man is of women, the more misogynistic, condescending, and reductive he will be. And the "disagreeability" is just a way to rationalize the defensiveness and insecurity. It's an experience that women have all the time and it has a certain flavor to it that's not easily mistakable. And he has expressed other things in the past that give hints of having a generally unfavorable, defensive, or reductive outlook towards women. These are very accurate litmus tests of whether or not someone has a chip on their shoulder relative to women. This may not be something you notice because you're a man. But it tends to be more obvious from the female perspective because we're used to that flavor.

Enlighten me then. Tell me about your experiences that have gone deeper than my deepest experience. I'd be very excited to hear about that. But be forewarned, you can't tell me the sky is green without me pushing back on it when I've witnessed myself that it is not. Also, I don't know where you heard that I have a hatred towards men. Most of my gender-related issues that I've had to work through have been hatred of women, femininity, and myself as an extension of that. I do sometimes get jealous/frustrated towards men at not having to grapple with these issues to the same degree and/or just simply not understanding nor even really being curious about it. That's my main axe to grind, generally speaking. But if you really desire to share truth/wisdom with others, then you should anchor yourself in what you've actually experienced. And you should examine why you're trying to get my goat by peppering your messages with tons of condescension.

Perhaps some insecurities and fears of inferiority and feeling the need to prove himself by competing with women.

I would say no. But enlightenment is no longer a goal to me as it lost a lot of its meaning to me after the ayahuasca ceremony. But I have experienced both ego death and ego transcendence, and I'm familiar with the perspective. And in my day to day life, there are many times during the day that I become present to what I've heard referred to as the "I am" state. That is, if memory serves correctly about what that term refers to. Basically, I've gotten some distance from the thought-story that ego spins. And in this distance, I am often confronted by the subtle awareness of being in the illusion. That said, I still have an ego. And in certain situations I can go completely into attachment to the ego-mind. I just have a lot more distance from that thought story now. But one thing is for sure. I do (from direct experience) have an abiding awareness of what the ego is... and it definitely isn't the entirety of human psychology. Also, in a state of ego transcendence, you still have all your human functionings (including your psychology). And this is something I've directly experienced as well.

I'm sorry. But I have direct experience that contradicts your views.

What I'm saying is that you don't actually know what you're talking about. You're speculating and coming to incorrect conclusions. Also, your humanity is not something to be resisted against or transcended. To attempt to do so is just spiritual bypassing.

@Gesundheit Exactly. Psychological needs are just part of the way that the mind/body works. This doesn't change when we realize the deeper nature of Self. And this is because the human self never becomes enlightened. The human self just plays itself out by the same rules that it was bound by before. The shift of enlightenment is that the universe has woken itself up to realizing that it isn't just this human self. But the human self playing out in this relative reality story still has all the same needs... both physical and psychological. "Before enlightenment, chop wood carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood carry water."

If Emerald is not satisfied in a conscious relationships it is not self-loving OR Self-loving to keep the relationship in the current state. The relationship dissatisfaction must lead either to fixing things so that both partners are satisfied... or the relationship must end. Also, funny enough, I was watching a Rupert Spira video yesterday after years of not having watched him. And he expressly said that his perspective wasn't that people should avoid relationship. But people don't need eachother for love... as love is always the case even if all of our needs go unmet... even unto death. That said, people do need loving relationships with one another to fulfill our psychological and emotional needs. We are a social species. Again, all of this is about honoring both the absolute perspective and the relative perspective. So, when Rupert Spira is approaching his teachings, he is focusing more on integrating the absolute perspective. And this is helpful if a person doesn't misunderstand and go spiritually bypassing their human needs. So Rupert Spira isn't going to tell you that enlightenment is going to dispossess you of your human nature and your relative needs as such.

I've just thought up a good analogy that may clear this issues up for people. Let's say that, in this analogy, being authentic and conscious means being up on a horse... squarely in the saddle. Then, on the right side of the horse you have aggressiveness, harshness, and being an asshole. Then, on the left side of the horse, you have passivity, weakness, and being a doormat. Now, people who are up on the horse will be attracted to other people who are up on the horse, as these are people who are whole unto themselves and are anchored in their healthy personal sovereignty. But a high percentage of people (perhaps the majority) are unconscious and dealing with traumas, and don't sit up on the horse. They've fallen over on either side. Most women end up falling on the left side of the horse and becoming a doormat, often due to being indoctrinated that way. So, if an unconscious man wants to attract a woman, the most effective thing he can do is compensate for that is by falling over on the right side of the horse as this will seem to complete what's missing in the woman who has fallen over on the left side. If a woman is missing her ability to be assertive, she will be attracted to and attract men (and other people) into her life that are aggressive to compensate. This creates a co-dependent relationship dynamic. So, if you wonder why "Assholes" are more attractive to more women than "Doormats" (falsely called Nice Guys), then this is why. Unconscious and fragmented people try to find their missing fragments in other people. But if you want to be attractive to someone who's up on the horse, then you have to be up on the horse yourself. That means you have to get in touch with your natural personal sovereignty as opposed to aspiring towards being an asshole. Assholes may get more women than average... but not because that's inherently more attractive to women. It's inherently more attractive to women who have been traumatized a particular way... which is a LOT of women.

Yes, there is Yin/Yang polarity. Complementary polarity creates attraction in a relationship while similarity creates bonding. And part of this is rooted in the biology... though there are other perspectives on polarity as well. The distinction here is that a man who represses his feminine side doesn't become more masculine... and a woman who represses her masculine side doesn't become more feminine. So, those that are on either side of the horse are not any more or less masculine (or feminine) than they already were. They are just repressing parts of themselves. Understand that when I say this, that being on either side of the horse doesn't have anything to do with polarity... it just has to do with a person's psychological state. And a person who is skewed to one side will be attractive to people who are skewed to the other side. But this doesn't have to do with natural polarity... it's a trauma attraction.