Emerald

Actually, I've thought the same thing. I do both life-coaching and Tarot reading (both as lines of work), and they're quite similar. The main difference with the Tarot, in facilitating a person to find their own answers is that you're using a visual framing device, that has a more direct link to the archetypal/narrative aspects of the mind. So, the Tarot is a lot like a vehicle that can drive you to aspects of the mind that you would have a much harder time reaching without that vehicle. The difference between trying to walk across the desert versus driving.

I agree with your perspective in this way. Basically, these archetypal images are always relevant to our lives in some way, as we're always running through these cycles in some form or another. So, no matter which card you draw, you can find a connection to it. And through finding that connection, a deeper understanding can emerge. Personally, don't get very interested in Tarot through a divination perspective... though I don't rule it out. I do like to assume a sense of synchronicity, but this is less important to me. My interest is more in line with helping the mind pick up on meanings and patterns that it typically wouldn't, to give better insight to either me or the querent. It's kind of like how a fable works. So, you can tell someone not to lie... or you can tell them the fable of the "Boy Who Cried Wolf". And since people are natural story tellers and our first language is the visual language, we can imagine the consequences of those actions as opposed to just knowing them rationally. So, it engages more of the heart and the intuitive faculties than just the intellect.

Yes. I am bi-sexual but have a stronger preference for men... probably about an 80/20 split if I were to try to quantify it.

I've done a ton of field tests and experiments on this already. Trust me. That's my point. I'm telling you what I've found. It just disagrees with your hypothesis, so you think that I don't understand what you're saying. Also, what you're saying about attractiveness outweighing every other indicator relationship-wise is not true for everyone... probably just from your perspective and others who share a similar perspective. But a mature man who has been around the block a time or two and is interested in a real relationship, will pick a 6 who's compatible over an 9 who's incompatible, in a relationship. Now, he may pick the 9 for a one-night stand or brief fling because it's a novel experience. But women are generally not very into that anyway. So, it's not so unfortunate from their perspective. Also, if you have any questions regarding the underlying patterns that exist in the context of this over-arching pattern, then feel free to ask. I have 30 years of experience being female. And we have a front-row seat to these phenomena that men don't and can't experience. And I totally agree that we should put aside beliefs to see what's actually there. That's what I've been telling you the entire time. My experiences are in-congruent with your beliefs... so I'm trying to help you see that your beliefs are not accurate because they are only viewing reality through one very distorted lens. But my experiences, I will not set aside. They are experiences not beliefs. That's the difference in our perspectives. But here are the results of some of my experiments... If you're an average or above woman, most men will want to have sex with you. If you're an unattractive woman, you'll still have no issue finding a man who wants to have sex with you. And about 20% or more of men who want to have sex with you will be willing to be in a relationship with you. Most men are just overjoyed to get attention and acceptance from a woman, and they crave it. This is an approximation of what I've witnessed and experienced. Now, there is privilege in terms of women who are considered attractive by the consensus. So, I'm not saying that pretty privilege doesn't exist. It's just that you're implying that looks is the only factor of any import for women in all situations, and most sectors of society aren't that objectifying or harsh to the overarching degree that you assume. And this includes the dating sector.

I understood 100% of what you said in your post. And nothing of what you said was anything new to me. I've been sorting this issue since I was a small child living in a world obsessed with women's looks. Women live the direct self-consciousness about looks daily as a result of this constant reminder. Therefore, I've been introspecting and contemplating on this issue for a very long time, and have been dating and been in relationships for about 17 years. So, I find it somewhat laughable that you're talking to me about coming to grips with something that is constantly in the background of my life that you likely only were doing some mental masturbation (or actual masturbation :D) about. But one of the things that you learn as an average woman, who doesn't look like a model, is that there are men who exist at varying levels of sexual and emotional maturity. So, there may be some who only want 10s... most of whom are not 10s themselves, and will overlook all the opportunities to be in a real relationship in hopes to be with an ideal. But there are also tons of men who are mature enough to be in a relationship with that can appreciate more modest forms of beauty and are mostly heart focused with their relationships. So, they desire intimacy with a woman more than the excitement of bedding a hottie. In fact, this is the only kind of man you can have a worthwhile relationship with in the first place. Other men, won't be able to meet you where you are emotionally which steals away all the loving and erotic feelings. So, your perspective is coming from a very 1-dimensional map of the dating world that only focuses toward the baser instincts of sexuality... specifically the male baser instincts in this case. It's also filtered through the lens of using the Tinder app, which is quite a far cry from the natural human mating ritual. It doesn't engage the entire being in the dating process in the way warm organic courtship does. So, it's very reductive. And this 1 dimensional focus, in itself, is a distortion because there is a lot more than just base instinct within sexuality and relationships. And you can even look around at the world and see that reality contradicts your ideas. People of all levels of attractiveness find mates. And people typically tend to pair-bond with someone around their looks-match. Studies have even shown it to be true. So, you're only focusing at the level of the loins and not at the level of heart or mind. Now, if reality only worked at the level of the beast in us, then it could be said that mother nature is quite cruel to unattractive people. And especially women, whose base attraction has largely to do with visual fertility signifiers. And certainly looks help to attract a mate. But this is quite obvious to everyone... women especially. So, your assertion is kind of a "duh" from the female perspective. We know what men like sexually, as that information is literally everywhere. So, it's as obvious as saying the grass is green. But despite this, the reality is that it evens out. And I know this from experience. I'm an average looking woman, and I've probably been approached over 1000 times. Not to mention all the willing ones who didn't approach. The odds are quite good for finding a mate. And the choosing is largely in the woman's hands. And this is so because men are generally not really picky. If a woman wants a man, she can find one in short order. And that's true, even if she's a 2. The only reason why women will tend to have issue finding a guy is if she's too guarded and men feel intimidated approaching her. But it will seldom if ever just be looks alone that stands in the way. A woman could be very unattractive, but very flirtatious, and there will be plenty of men who flock around her. Women, on the other hand are usually at least somewhat choosy. This difference between men and women can be chalked up to basic biology and practicality... Men can have 1000 kids per year if he really tried with potentially no practical commitment needed. Women can have one child a year, and there is a direct impact on her body and circumstances and an 18 year commitment on the other end of the pregnancy. So, women are naturally more picky when it comes to choosing a mate for this reason. And the intuition is used to do that choosing more than the eyes are. So, what you're saying about it being easier for a woman to find a mate if she's more attractive is very obvious. But also, your idea that only attractive women have men who are genuinely interested in them is untrue. It's not actually necessary at all. You're just basing this idea on your experience of either being a man who hasn't opened his heart enough to appreciate a relationship with a woman OR you're basing all of your ideas on your experience of scrolling through Tinder... which isn't anything like real dating/courtship.

@possibilities This is actually more of a problem of under-developed masculinity and lack of integration. A man who is under-developed and immature in his masculinity will only be looks focused because sexuality only occurs on the level of the loins for them and does not integrate with sexuality on the level of heart or mind. And it's only connecting on the ground floor of sexuality. Once you open your heart and mind, you will find women who aren't perfect looking attractive and you'll be much more focused toward intimacy and connection. And it's a much more pleasurable and intimate experience, and is honestly truly what you crave whether you realize it or not. But this takes a lot of work for a (young/immature) man usually because the pull of the sexual instinct will maintain a holding point in the loins until he gathers enough energy to transmute that energy toward his heart. And this works against gravity. And if a man has an issue with addiction to masturbation, that energy won't accrue and will discipate. This difficulty with heart opening is especially true with apps like Tinder because it simply doesn't function the way the normal human mating ritual is designed. So, it fundamentally doesn't allow for heart openings and getting to know women. It becomes basically like the fast food of sex and relationships, where you just throw a bunch of spaghetti at the way and see what sticks. This is not natural and goes against our natural instinct toward pair-bonding. And sex/relationship becomes only about checking boxes as opposed to developing intimacy with another human being. A woman on the other hand, whose sexuality who runs opposite to a man's, begins in the mind, will have no trouble bringing her attraction to a man down through her heart and to here loins (if she's not blocked) because it goes with the flow of gravity. But it's trickier for her to find a guy who gets into her mind. Thus, Tinder is especially ill-fit for women, because absolutely ZERO aspects of the chemistry that she needs to fall in love with a man can come through that medium. Women need to experience a man fully and intuitively for him to get into her mind. And that's tricky because women usually only hold that space for one man at a time (or perhaps a few are contenders). So, it ends up, with Tinder, just sorting through a bunch of guys and not being able to pick up on his energetic signature. Also, there is no need for women to get plastic surgery to attract a guy. No matter what a woman looks like, there will always be men that are interested if she seems open to relationships and/or sex. That's one of the perks and drawbacks of being a woman. There is never a shortage of men trying to get with you. And this is specifically why women tend to become very intuitive with regard to the maturity level of men. It's just very obvious when a guy is a high quality guy who is able to open his heart. And it's also very obvious to pick up on a guy who hasn't really stepped into mature manhood, and can't really be in tune with his heart and emotions. You get the sense that he isn't interested in meeting you where you are, and there would be no way for him to even fake it. Edit: Also, if any man wants to transmute his sexual energy from the loins up to the heart, he must first develop a strong sense of self, willpower, boundaries, and self esteem. The channel between the sacral chakra (sexuality) and the heart chakra (love and connection) has the solar plexus chakra in between which is all about personal development and self-hood. So, a little bit of self-actualization work is a necessary foundation to developing the capacity for love and connection.

I don't know about that. I think it's best to err on the side of openly vocal suspicion by the populace at large, in this particular case. And that's because it does naturally lead to suspicion for anyone considering the most reasonable possibilities. And that's frankly because of how many powerful people were likely engaging in sex crimes against minors. And Epstein was the one in charge of it all. He knew all the dirt. And because Epstein is dead now before he's testified, the chances of those names being revealed just dropped significantly. And if the powerful people have paid off and/or threatened everyone at the prison, the coroner, and anyone else involved... chances are they will also do the same with the media. And they'll try to roll their eyes like people are being crazy and spinning hokey conspiracy theories like Alex Jones... when it honestly is the most reasonable explanation. And if too many average people went with the truth that "We don't really know anything", that would just help them spin that narrative. Because a lofty truth can help obfuscate other truths. So, it may be true that we don't know anything for sure... but it sure as hell isn't helpful. So, it's not crazy to assume this at all. It's quite logical. In fact, I'd argue it's the most logical explanation. So, regardless of what's true or not, I do think it's a positive thing that so many people are vocally calling something out that smells funny. Can't let 'em get away with everything.

You don't really know. That's true. But if you aren't at least suspicious of foul play, you're being pretty naive to the way human beings work. Imagine this. Some guy has dirt on the mafia. And suddenly, he's committed suicide. A little fishy, right? If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck... it may just be a really weird goose. But let's be real, it's probably a duck.

I fully believe that it was foul play. It sounds like a hokey conspiracy theory at face value. But it honestly makes the most sense. I think it's a bit naive to assume that a man who had TONS of the worst kind of dirt on so many of the most powerful people in the world wouldn't have hits out on him. So many powerful people had a vested interest in him being dead, you can imagine. My theory is that, when he harmed himself a week or two ago, he was trying to get on suicide watch to be protected and watched over constantly. But if we have some billionaires that want him dead, they could easily buy off the guards and the coroner to rule it a suicide. And they could also threaten violence toward their families. At the end of the day, the moneyed class can behave exactly like the mafia when the chips are down. And that's honestly the most obvious answer as to what happened. On top of that, according to first-hand accounts by prisoners, it's a facility that would be very difficult to commit suicide in, especially on suicide watch.

Contrapoints gives some really solid socio-political analysis. And it's very entertaining as well... Here's my favorite, as it gives a snap-shot of the "alt-right", how to recognize it, and its influence on mainstream political opinions... On a similar note, Innuendo Studios does some great informative videos on the "Alt-Right" and breaks down their strategies for gaining a foothold in mainstream discourse.

It's difficult because those neural pathways have been activated toward pleasure in relation to the fetish many times. So, it gets you into a deep habitual groove where you experience pleasure the easiest and strongest through that neural pathway, where others haven't been developed much or at all. Luckily, you can create and strengthen new neural pathways as well, and (in some degree) atrophy old ones through disengaging. So, you'll have to practice climaxing during normal sex. And not get discouraged when it doesn't happen right away or isn't as intense. Also, to delay gratification, when you know you can reach in your mind toward the fetish image and orgasm quickly and strong. So, you have to have some willpower to hold back from the instant orgasm button in your mind. Then, you practice disengagement with the fetish. And like all things, it will get hazier and fuzzier with time. It's like riding a bike. You never quite forget. But you will fall off your game if you disengage with it. And you want to fall off your game with the fetish. ***Now, another thing, is that you have to remove the emotional charge from the fetish by processing the emotions and trauma that caused it. This is the root cause of all of it. Once you do this, it will be a little bit harder to orgasm from the fetish as it will have lost its charge. And it will also be much easier to disengage from and atrophy the fetish's hold over your sexual instincts, so that the energy can take other pathways. As someone who has dealt personally with trauma-based fetish before, I know that it's difficult to unlearn and unwire it. It takes a lot of time, energy, and practice. But it is possible.

There are three centers in the body that relate to sexuality and relationships. Those are the mind, the heart, and the genitals. And one or more of these become activated in a romantic relationship/situation. Generally speaking, men and women tend to have opposite currents relative to these three centers. For women, attraction tends to begin in the mind, travel to the heart, and eventually end up in the genitals. For men, attraction tends to begin in the genitals, travel to his heart, and then to his mind. And in there is a cycle that's created between the two in a sexual relationship, where the man penetrates the woman's genitals and the woman penetrates his mind. This is why it's very common for women to want to know what's going on in a man's mind, and for a man to be really focused toward the visceral aspects of sex. One particular challenge of male sexuality is that the sexual instinct in the genitals is so strong (for both man and woman) that it has a gravity to it that the other centers don't have. So, for men this genital-heavy orientation creates a holding point where it keeps that energy from rising up into the heart and mind. So, men who are a bit young or not yet fully developed as people get that energy stuck in the genitals. And it keeps them from being able to keep (or even see the value in) a relationship with women beyond sex. They are not able to see women through the heart lens. But once a man works on himself and integrates his feminine side, that energy can rise up through the other two centers and he is capable of valuing a woman as a partner and has the capacity to fall in love. Some guys are just like this, and have a mature 3-tiered attraction dynamic, even as teenagers. Some guys never develop this capacity for a variety of reasons and remain stuck in the genital orientation of relationships. But most guys have a bit of an arc, where they eventually develop a more mature masculinity. So, my thought is that you may be attracting and getting attracted to men who are still in that immature phase where the heart and mind hasn't been integrated into the sexual experience. And it's rather unnerving to be with a guy like that. Luckily, it has a vibe to it. You can pick up on it, as long as you yourself are mature in that way. And once you mature, you will discover a natural aversion to that energy that under-developed guys tend to give off. And you will start to get naturally more attracted to men with a more integrated heart. So, I recommend focusing toward growing yourself and maturing in the same way. For women, the problem they have is integrating the heart as well, especially if there are trust issues. So, the mind becomes really strong and resistant to being vulnerable. In a nutshell, the way to find someone who is mature, is to mature yourself. And after that you will naturally attract partners that will value you as a person and will make you a priority in their life.

Everything is love on the ultimate level. But in the relative terms of relational love, attraction and love are two totally different things. Attraction is about the sexual chemistry and infatuation you feel at the beginning of a relationship. It's mostly sexual and it fades quickly after the limerance phase of a relationship is over. Love is much deeper and is the process of growing together and opening to one another. It is not contingent upon attraction at all.

While it is true that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, unattractiveness (as a general quality) is a phenomenon that exists in all species. There are people that are less attractive than others. That's why I said beauty and attractiveness are not the same thing. Everyone is beautiful. But not everyone is attractive. And there is a general consensus about the qualities that make a person attractive versus not attractive. The same is true in the animal kingdom. But I never said that there are people that aren't beautiful. Everyone and everything genuinely is beautiful. The problem that I'm lighting upon is a sneaky one that actually works against people that don't conform to the general conception of attractiveness. When someone responds with "everyone is beautiful" in a discussion about attractiveness, it comes out of a desire to be nice to unattractive people... by denying that they're unattractive. It may seem a bit nebulous to point to but it's actually a rather insidious thing. It's to say, the thing you are is invalid... therefore I will be nice and pretend you are not that thing. Being ugly is invalid... therefore I will pretend ugly people don't exist so that I can feel better and be a good person. Ugly people are beautiful too. But ugly people are not attractive... and that's okay. They don't owe attractiveness to anyone to be valid. Do you see the issue now with the way this idea of "everyone is beautiful" was used in the previous context?

That's a bit different from what I mean but it relates a bit. What I'm saying is that unattractiveness is a phenomenon. There are people who are more attractive than others. And ignoring that has a bit of shadow to it, even though it seems to be nice to say. And the reason why is because their is an association that unattractive=bad and attractive=good. So, in order to call everyone good, then it has to be understood that everyone is attractive. So, there is still an underlying association of unattractive=bad. What you're referring to is the wanting to spend your life with someone which is to do with love more than attraction. Though these things relate, especially in the initial phases, it is very different.

Certainly, everyone is beautiful. But not everyone is attractive. But being unattractive doesn't make someone's value lesser in any existential way. I feel like denying that unattractive people exist is a bit backwards in a strange and unexpected way. It has good intentions of helping unattractive people's self esteem... but ultimately it denies a reality about some people and gaslights them. And in that denial there is a hidden difficulty in accepting the existence of unattractive people. It's like those Dove commercials that are all about being more inclusive about beauty standards. And they show a lot of moderately attractive women of all ages, races, and body types. But the striking this is... they don't show any ugly women. There is no one under a 5 on the attractiveness scale in those commercials. That said, unattractive people can find a partner just like anyone else. So, nothing is truly off the table. But I feel like the "everyone is beautiful" line, is a way to deny the uncomfortable reality that some people are unattractive. And the unwillingness to admit to that, unconsciously sends the message that there is a problem with the existence of unattractive people.

This is interesting... I don't know if it's conservatives trying to trick liberals into supporting a border wall or If it's liberals trying to trick conservatives into investing in renewable energy The world may never know...

Women who are in touch with their emotions don't want a man as a commodity. That's a common projection coming from society thinking about women as a commodity. And it comes from a sense of insecurity and low self-worth. And it also comes from being too much in masculine-mode (mind-mode) and not being enough in the feminine-mode (heart-mode). So, there is a desire to quantify and objectify everything, instead of being in the intuition and heart. If a woman really wants a man, she wants him for him and not for the laundry list of things that he provides. But a woman really needs a companion that can meet her emotionally where she is. Women don't get a lot out of mutual masturbation or a relationship born out of shallow needs for resources and the like. There are women who will go for that. But that's only because they are not in touch with their feminine energy, so they don't experience the world through the heart. So, a woman needs to be in her heart and have a man who complements her that is also living from his heart. And they need to be able to make that situation work in the real world, which means that both partners are working together to create a life. This may seem trite or simplistic, but this simplicity is the good witches brew for a fulfilling relationship.

I'm of the mind that women rival men in regards to sex drive, which runs counter to most folk wisdom about the topic. I think this because I can't imagine that a man would think that much more about sex than I do, which is often. So, the difference, in my view, is slight. That said, women are less likely to want to have sex. And this is for several reasons. Number one, for men sex is a medium risk, high reward activity. For women, sex is a high risk, low reward activity (most of the time). So, women are inclined to be more selective about sex because they are less likely to feel physical pleasure and sexual satisfaction but are risking pregnancy and have to be vulnerable to someone stronger than them. Also, they are more likely to contract STDs from men than men are from women. So, these are the practicals. But even moreso than this, women's satisfaction during sex has to do with emotional stimulation and fulfillment. So, not just any sex will do. There is a relatively high bar for what is good sex for a woman, and most of it's bad sex. For men, their satisfaction has most to do with a physical body reaction as this is what produces a child. And so, mostly, all sex is good sex for them. So, if we think of this in a different analogy, let's take enjoyment of food. So, let's say there are thoughts that men enjoy food more than women. And men in this imaginary society will eat any food and be excited about it, as long as it's okay. So, men will enjoy fast food, gas station food, casual dining, fine dining, etc. Men just love food, and are more simple about it. But the women in this imaginary society are naturally pickier with their food. And so, unless it's just the right food, eating something else is so putrid to them that they'd rather not eat at all. But when they do enjoy food, they enjoy it in a way that the men do not. They take in all the textures and flavors that the men don't. Men just like eating, women like experiencing all the sensual pleasures of the food and not just any food will satisfy. Their palettes are more refined, let's say. So, this is essentially what the difference is. So, at that point you can ask the question of who is more sexual and ask the question. So, who loves food more... Is it the person who will eat anything and just loves eating? Or is it the person who is more of a food connoisseur who has a more refined palette, that won't be particularly satisfied by a McDonald's cheeseburger?

Definitely. And most women don't know how to communicate this because they haven't crystalized this insight themselves. So, it's like a blind leading the blind situation.

Women don't like to be on the receiving end of men wanting sex. Women do like to be on the receiving end of a man she feels chemistry with wanting her. So, it's the difference between you wanting sex and you wanting her. And to a woman, this is a whole world of difference. She probably felt in many ways like you wanted to use her to get off, without regard to actually wanting the sense of closeness with her as a person. And even if this isn't your conscious intention, it does come as a natural outgrowth of under-development in this department. For women, sex is largely about connection. So, this is extra offensive to women's sensibilities about sex, because it turns something of loving connection and an intimate physical conversation between two emotional beings into a mindless chore of her getting you off and an a to b journey to your orgasm. So, it makes women feel like a masturbation helper, rather than a beloved, which is primarily what they desire from a sexual connection. So, she is correct that your sex drive is selfish, as there is no chance of her (or any woman's) needs being met in this dynamic. But this is just because you have not integrated your sex drive with your heart. In order to really develop as a man, you have to be able to have agreement between these two areas. Otherwise, the woman will sense that she is alone during sex and there will be this feeling of being used that will naturally spring about. So, be sure to integrate your sex drive, heart, and mind. And from there, you will naturally be less selfish and will be able to enjoy sex more deeply yourself. Otherwise, it's just about getting off, and that's fairly hollow.

Haha! Thanks.

The thing that's most important in this matter with regard to women's experience of you as a lover is learning how to push the right emotional buttons. Metaphorically, it's in the same way that someone would get good at playing an instrument, if the sound coming from the strings of that instrument were different colors and textures of emotions. So, imagine that your partner's emotional body is like a harp, and that in order to produce a pleasant sound, you have to know a few things about how to cause that reaction inside her emotional body. And this is 15% physical technique and 25% emotional technique and 60% full authentic expression of your natural personality as an individual man. And the last ingredient of this is most important because, when a woman wants you in a real way, she can't get your essence anywhere else. So, the essence of you is what she craves the most. And making love with you will be like heaven to her, as long as you have the physical and emotional techniques in your arsenal as well. But the thing that attracts a woman to sex is much less about the physical body, but more about the desire for specific types of emotional stimulation from a man that matches her and inspires her. And women intuitively know, when a man can or can't give that to her. She needs a guy with a particular energetic signature and personality to make the right music inside of her. And if you're not the right type of guy for a woman, you won't be able to play her emotional instrument at an excellent level. The sound will always be mediocre. So, it's impossible to be a sex God with most women, as it's just not in the cards. But you can be that way for the women that get struck by the Cupid's Arrow for you. So, if you find a woman who is intuitively drawn to you, you can be a sex God for her. And if you learn the technical aspects, you can also be a decent lay for most women who are looking to experiment. But you won't be blowing any minds of women if you're just on the sexual level with them. The real thrill is the emotional for women, and the physical is pretty "meh" without it. But if you have the emotional and physical together and a woman feels that she can explore you as an individual and what makes you tick and how you think, then you can transport her to another world.

Isn't findom where you literally just give the women money, and that's it. They don't even do anything other than take money? No sex. No talking. No interaction of any kind past just giving money to them. Is that right? I had heard about it but didn't even think it was a real thing. So, what is it that you get out of this arrangement? It must give you some sense of release, perhaps like self-harm... but financial self-harm. Bottom line, you should keep your money as you're paying money just to be financially harmed. And you're using this to reflect the wounds and feelings of powerlessness that you feel and attribute to women. You should look into the topic of Anima possession, as this can cause these very types of behaviors. A lot of guys into Red Pill and especially Incels deal with Anima possession internally, and it causes all these distortions in how they view women and it makes them feel powerless. Those in MGTOW and MRA types cope with Anima possession by trying to feel a false sense of empowerment through masculinity. Those who are Incels, go the opposite direction and become submissive and self-flaggelating, preferring to tongue their own wounds and avoid taking personal agency. So, the former has a coping mechanism that's primarily destructive to others. And the latter has a coping mechanism, that's primarily destructive to the self. But both are self-destructive and destructive to others as they're going around and around with the same internal split, and are doing things to create a greater rift inside themselves as opposed to integrating the Anima. Here is a video I made on the topic...

This stems from the fact that, until very recently in human history, women have been regarded as week and incapable. So, with 2nd Wave Feminism, there was a movement toward recognizing strength in women. And this birthed the notion of the strong woman, who can do anything a man can do. And this was usually with a Stage Orange framing of being able to be "as good as men" in the workplace. And making the case that women can perform as well as men and be as good as men. And this rhetoric is still used in a lot of Pop-Feminism, which is what the average person is aware of relative to Feminism. So, it's a lot of Dove commercials, Beyonce quotes, and 'Slay girl slay' kind of sentiments. But underneath these seemingly empowering statements of women being strong and just as good as men, there is a shadow. And that shadow is that society thinks that masculinity is superior to femininity. And so, this framing always happens from this masculine supremacy vantage point. So, it's always saying, "women can be as good as men." Like, "You can get there if you try hard and prove yourself." But notice that men are the hallmark that women must aspire to in this 'strong woman' story. And a woman can be strong and excel and be accepted into the boys club in a similar (but not entirely equal) fashion to men... on the condition that she can throw away her femininity in all but appearance and adopt a masculine sensibility about the world. So, there are huge anti-feminine and thus anti-woman shadows to this 2nd Wave Feminist talking point of strong and independent women. And the shadow is that women can excel and be accepted as long as they don't act like women and can draw a distinction between themselves and "the other girls". And we see this in characters in pop culture all the time. Often, the most well-written and endearing female characters are ones that reject femininity and feminine signifiers as trite and silly. Like the (pretty) tomboy who's "not like the other girls" and hates the color pink. And the (pretty) badass chick who's "not like the other girls" and kicks everyone's ass. And the (pretty) down to Earth girl who's "not like the other girls". And the (pretty) manic pixie dream girl who's "not like the other girls". Either that, or you have the (pretty) bitch or the (pretty) dumb bitch, who are always incredibly under-written and unlikable. So, this pop culture trend that was popular when I was younger, that's now in the process of dying out because of the strides that our collective awareness has made in the past half a decade or so relative to our anti-feminine biases. So, what I recommend is not to focus toward being a "strong independent woman" because that's a stock character that exists as a reaction against the oppression that women have faced for many millennia. But because it is an image in resistance to something, it is very much in the same entanglement as that which it pushes against. So, you can never be free from internalized misogyny by adopting an image that was born out of internalized misogyny. It's best to dig deep and be authentic instead. And you can just be a well-rounded person without having to qualify yourself as strong to be a valid woman. Edit: Long story short... the 'strong independent woman' trope was born out of 2nd Wave Feminism and genuinely helped women get more of an equal standing in society and in the workforce. But there are anti-feminine shadows to it, so it's very out-dated and best transcended with a more pro-feminine and authenticity centered way of validating women and people in general, without needing them to be "like the big boys."