Emerald

Essentially yes. There can be exceptions, but this is how it's always been for me. The friend zone is default, so it takes the development of feelings for a man to cease to be in the friend zone. Most men tend to think of the friend zone as a place that women actively put select men that they're not interested in. But this is not true, and is largely an assumption that women and men work the same way regarding selectivity and attraction. But women don't work like men relative to attraction. For women, everyone starts from the friend zone for the most part, and then if feelings develop then that person gets out of the friend zone. So, the friend zone is basic for 99.9% of men, and only a small fraction of a percentage ever get out. Though the latent attraction potential exists for many men within that zone.

That's hard to say. For me, it usually takes me at least a few days for an attraction to set in. But even that's hard to say because the onset of the attraction is very gradual. All men start out as friends/acquaintances who are neutral, and most remain neutral. The friend zone is the default zone for everyone. But every once and a while, I'll make a guy friend or acquaintance and I'll be thinking of him when I'm not around him. Then, gradually, I'll start to realize that an attraction is forming and that I'm feeling very alive when I'm around him or thinking about him. But the onset is so gradual and coming from nothing that I don't know where the attraction actually technically begins. There are no hard lines to anything. It's all very organic and slow burning. But I've had it to where I've known a guy for a while, but started to get an attraction a long time down the road. Or I meet a guy, and I have developed an attraction with him within the week. So, there is no set answer. The main thing is to become attuned to signifiers of attraction and hone your intuition about who is developing feelings for you and learning how to stoke those fires in subtle ways.

Race is not a hallucination in the practical sense. It definitely exists as a real experiential reality. And people are treated differently on the basis of it. So, to say that race isn't a real experiential reality is to engage in the mental gymnastics needed to ignore race-related issues and your emotional responses to it and maintain the status quo within your comfort zone. It's all a mind-game that's designed to ignore certain realities to keep one's worldview in tact and avoid transcending it and relinquishing attachments to certain beliefs. Now, you can look at race in the vacuum of a more detached perspective that looks at race from a purely scientific view and say that everyone is a mix of different genes and that race is technically a false divide between people. And that's true from the scientific perspective. And technically, this perspective can help undo more overt forms of racism that society was dealing with 60 years ago and before. So, at one point this was a really helpful truth... but it doesn't work at the level we're facing racial issues at in present day as we're dealing with issues higher up on the spiral of human evolution. So, it's not the appropriate truth for the given circumstances and needs that we have as a society. So, when this scientific and detached perspective is viewed as the ultimate perspective on race, it is reductionist and edits out the truth and validity of the practical, subjective, and experiential reality of race. And this view is only true and helpful from very limited perspectives. So, to cling to this scientific truth as the "real" truth is to fail to be multi-perspectival and realize that there is more than just one truth about race and more than one valid perspective to see the world through, and that the validity of the perspective will vary based upon practical application. And the primary practical application that this truth is used for in the current day is simply to avoid uncomfortable subjective truths about race and how social systems react to it. So, this perspective on race is true from certain perspectives... but it isn't very helpful and invalidates and obscures other more helpful truths that will actually create expansion and integration within the human species and improve the quality of life for many people. And practically, everyone on the planet notices race as a phenomenological reality except people who are literally blind. And to claim otherwise is just self-deception and assuring one's self that "I'm not racist. I'm color blind". So, using this reductionist truth that "race is an illusion" to invalidate the experiential truth that "race is a subjectively, practically, and phenomenologically real and noticeable, and it has real effects on people and the world" is just using the more convenient truth to lie to one's self and create a blindspot whenever cognitive dissonance comes up. Don't put it past the mind to be able to self-delude and use truth from one paradigm for the purposes of dishonesty and self-deception to create a blindspot relative to another paradigm. So, let's be honest. You definitely notice race. I definitely notice race. You are not color blind. I am not color blind. There are very clear visual signifiers for race that people (including small babies) notice. And theres is nothing wrong with noticing that race is a phenomenological reality. Color-blindness is not a virtue to be aspired to anyway, as it is just a lie and a way to sweep problems under the rug that affect real people every day.

This is just more of Orange's Individualist resistance to Green's focus toward the Collectivist perspective, and a way to write off Green and demonize it. So, no. Individualism and Collectivism are both valid but imperfect perspectives, and both have utility relative situations and lack utility relative to certain other situations. So, a Yellow person would look at a given situation and see what was most appropriate in a given situation and choose depending on the scenario. And if they were looking from a social systems perspective as to how to effect major change in the world and creating space for expanded consciousness and higher quality of living on the macro, they would be wise to choose the Collectivist lens for dealing with these issues and creating actionable solutions. And from the perspective of social systems and everyday living, race is anything but a hallucination. It has very real impacts on how people are affected within a social system and how the entire system runs. And to ignore race as a reality is to create a blindspot and relegate all patterns that exist relative to race to the personal and collective shadow. It requires mental gymnastics to deny that these realities exist. This is why it's unconscious as it exists in the realm of Orange's shadow that it doesn't like to acknowledge, as it undermines the seeming airtightness of the Orange worldview to an Orange person. So, there will be many attempts to rationalize away these aspects of reality and invalidate them as "playing identity politics." In other words, denying the existence of the subjective collective reality relative to any identity signifier and its potential effects on individuals, just creates blindspots and unconsciousness and is rooted in denial of aspects of the social systems and how they work. It insulates us from the awareness of the barriers to humanity's expanding consciousness and liberation that looms upon the horizon.

Stage Yellow would be able to see which paradigm is most appropriate in a given situation. So, I wouldn't call it Individual Collectivism as a synonym for Yellow thinking. It's far more accurate to say that Yellow is adept at systemic thinking, as it has the ability to look at things through both and Individual and Collective lens because it has integrated and transcended both Orange and Green, as well as all the previous levels of Individualism and Collectivism. So, it can shift back and forth between the two depending on which paradigm is most appropriate for the common good in a given scenario.

The way I see it is this. The military will always exist as long as human society exists, as it is a natural form within our societies. It is necessary for protection and defense, as there will always be a chance of one country attacking another. So, there needs to be that line of defense there. That said, the military will take more denigrated or exalted forms (as every profession does) depending on the level of consciousness a society has. The same is true for law enforcement, teaching, religious figures, etc. So, if you get into the military for a real and tangible reason that you can see provides clear value to society, I don't see an issue with it. So, if you are in the reserves, this means that you are in your home country and ready to protect if another country attacks. So, this has clear value to your society as it saves lives, and it doesn't involve attacking another country and creating a bad situation for others. It's merely for protection, which is the highest tangible value that the military can realize. However, the current state of affairs with the military is heavily influenced by tribalism, ethnocentricity, greed, cleaving to imaginary symbols, and meaningless conflict that has no value to society. So, offensive wars are very low consciousness unless they are done to protect vulnerable countries or ourselves from tyrants and their regimes. Now, you have to be careful in the military, even if you're just in the reserves because they do tend to enforce a lot of rigid Blue values based in imaginary ideas and symbolism. This is something that a person who's trying to actualize themselves should be looking to transcend to get detached from illusions and more grounded in truth. But if you can remain conscious that the highest purpose of the military is for protection and protection only, then being in the reserves should be okay. And realize also, that protection and offense are two totally different things.

Women tend to respond to a feeling of romantic ambiguity if there is a latent attraction there already (i.e. She thinks you are relatively attractive looking, etc.). So, if you can interact with a woman in a platonic way 99% of the time and give a small slip of ambiguous flirtation. That way, she will think of you when she is alone and wonder what your intentions are. And this will create a sense of tension around you... again if there is already a latent attraction. It will play out like, "Hmm. What did he mean by that?"... "Is he interested in me or am I imagining it?" And this curiosity can lead to a growing feeling of attraction because your intentions are mysterious and it makes her wonder if you're thinking about her and if you're attracted to her. You will be able to tell if she's interested because she'll come around more and may even try to get you to show that kind of attention to her again that got her thinking in that direction in the first place. So, being aware of attraction signifiers and picking up on those clues and trusting your instincts will be key to advancing further. But be aware that this method will take self-control, restraint, and subtlety. It's a seed you only plant once and wait for signs that she wants you to advance closer. This is a good method for women you are around pretty often. A subtle slip of innuendo or a platonic touch on the shoulder can be enough to set this reaction in motion. But it has to seem natural, innocent, detached from outcome, and unplanned. Now, you can also do the cold approach until you get a yes, and this will probably work faster. You will be able to find women who are looking for something a bit easier. But if you want to garner a deeper and more passionate response in the woman, you can try the above method.

Social status is definitely an "ingredient" that's naturally highly sought after. But social status by itself will only attract women who are looking for a free ride. Also, the main thing that women care about is context. So, it can be different for different women. For example, as a teenager, I was turned off by guys who were from wealthier backgrounds because I interpreted it as him never having to work for anything having mommy and daddy giving everything to him and not having the same experiences that I had as a working class person. So, being from a wealthy family meant that the guy wouldn't be able to give me the experience I wanted because of the bourgeois context of his life and his lack of grit. I wanted a more worldly guy who lived an edgier life that was interested and filled with working class values, a disregard for social status climbing, rebellion, and a stoner life-style. That's the kind of life I wanted to live, so I was interested in guys who already had that life. As a young adult, however, I had had enough of the drama of the previous lifestyle. So, I began to value financial success, stability, and social status in myself. To me, it was a signifier of my own ability to pull myself up by my bootstraps. I wanted to be and feel like an adult most of all. So, I began to be attracted to older men who were already settled with a stable career, as this is what I aspired toward. I desired the context, and men who had created that context for themselves. So, I found myself as a twenty year old getting attracted to mostly settled down guys in their 30s who had already developed a mature adult lifestyle. But this wasn't a decision I made. I just began to project attraction onto men like this. This is when I met my husband. Currently, I am almost thirty myself, and happily married. But I suspect if I were to find myself dating now that I'd be looking for something completely different than social status which was so important to me back then. I would definitely consider someone's career and finances before I got with them because that would have real consequences on my life long-term. But I'm no longer enamored by the idea of joining a man in his pre-established adult life-style and trying to climb in social hierarchies. I have other desires now beyond being an adult, now that I'm actually comfortably established in my own adulthood. So, I would probably be looking more for a guy who I could live an easy-going life with, who generally shared by values, disposition, and could join me where I'm at. But I still probably wouldn't date him if he didn't have career-goals and passions that are conferable in scale to my own, mostly for practical reasons of congruency. So, understand that for a lot of women who are looking to settle into a relationship with a man, they will be highly attuned to your ability to make a living and have respect within the community, as this will have direct consequences on their lives. Plus, this is what most people value in general. So, you will find that most women want to be with a guy who lives a stable lifestyle. And she will see a lack of social status and/or money as a potential red flag that the man doesn't live the lifestyle that she would like to live. So, this will be a major concern for most women. Plus, a man who is hard-working and successful likely possesses certain virtues that has brought him to that state. So, this is genuinely very admirable, and thus attractive. It makes a woman feel like she is stable and will be supported by that guy. So, there is definitely something incredibly sexy about that. But the sexiness isn't about he social status or success on it's own. It's sexy because he possessed the grit and intelligence to make something happen. So, for many women, social status is a very attractive ingredient because of what it implies about the man's virtues and the lifestyle he lives that she wants to join him in. But also, social status is only a deal-maker for women who are looking for a free ride or who feel unable to support themselves. Social status on its own doesn't make an attraction. But if there is a lack of status there, and a woman wants to live a stable middle class lifestyle, then it could be a deal-breaker if a guy doesn't have that.

But to focus only on the individual creates a blindspot in consciousness to the systemic nature of the social patterns that squelch society's consciousness and full potential. People who are interested in removing unnecessary systemic barriers relative to race, gender, socio-economic status, etc. are not engaging in Red/Blue tribalism. And to see it that way is just an outgrowth of Orange's resistance to Green. They are, in fact engaged in stage Green community focus and the more effective are both engaged in Green community focus coupled with Yellow systemic thinking. To boil everything down to the individual is to ignore the systemic nature of the workings of society, and to deny that society has systems that have real reactions to race, gender, socio-economic status, etc. So, it is Orange denial of Yellow to remain in the holding point of unconsciousness to the awareness of how certain communities of people are affected differently by the social systems that exist within society. Of course, Green does have a resistance to Orange individualism as well, and this is what makes them less effective than those who are interested in social justice causes that are more Yellow. So, Green people will also get stuck in victim's mentality and lose the ability to switch lenses from community focus to individual focus. But once a person is in Yellow, they will see the workings of society clearly and notice that race, gender, socio-economic status are foolish to ignore and pretend don't exist or have any bearing on anything. But they will also be more detached because they will be able to switch their lens back to individual focus if the situation is more appropriate. But all these problems with Green are Green problems. They're not Blue and Red problems, at all. Labeling them as Blue/Red is just a crafty way to justify resistance to Green, and to remain in Orange.

There's a difference between demonizing someone and stating what someone is doing and calling them out on it. I personally, don't demonize Jordan Peterson. I think that he thinks he's doing a very positive thing. So, I don't imagine him as some evil person rubbing their hands together maniacally and tying women to railroad tracks. I see Jordan Peterson as an idealist who has a particular view of what's best for humanity, who is willing to be manipulative and deceitful to make those 'positive' ends come to fruition. It's just that his positive ends, assume a lot about what actually makes a society the most functional. And one of those assumptions is that traditional gender roles are good for men, women, and children alike. And that deviating from them causes social decay. Another one, is that certain cultures are inherently superior to others because the people in those societies have a higher IQ. And that mixing people with lower IQs into a society with a high IQ, weakens the society. So, Jordan Peterson's goal is not to oppress anyone. It's to create a perfect society by making sure that everyone is in their proper and natural place... which necessitates exclusion and cleaving to traditional norms and roles.

If we look at this in terms of Spiral Dynamics, it's emblematic of Orange's drive toward individuality reacting negatively against the community focus of Green and the systemic thinking of Yellow.

None of this is true... and you know it. It's just catastrophizing.

Thank you.

That's the most sure-fire way to find someone as a guy. Now, when it comes to compatibility, that's another topic. You'll have to vet through the women that get attracted to see if you'll be compatible. But the most important thing is to be social and meet a lot of women (and men too as an extension of the purely social aspect of meeting people). And develop the ability to socialize with anyone. Then, learn some basic techniques for flirting and attracting women in general. And eventually someone will be interested. She may not show it though. Many women tend to be very closed-lipped about their attractions.

That's the tricky part about it. It's not about one particular "ingredient" that a man has that makes a girl attracted. It's about how the unique mixture of ingredients come together to create a unique "dish" and how it suits a particular woman's "palette." So, two men with very similar qualities would have two totally different reactions with a given woman. That said, there are ways to improve the "ingredients" of your being to make them have more appeal to more women. So, it isn't a 100% subjective thing. You can max out your good qualities. But there is no one trait that female attraction hinges upon. It's always about the mix of traits together as a whole that consists of more than the sum of its parts. And then, how that unique vibe that a man has interacts with an individual woman's emotions. So, it just doesn't really work like male attraction, that's objective, relatively non-selective, and largely based on having particular traits. Female attraction is a lot more subjective and idiosyncratic with emotions and intuition being the main qualifier for attraction. And it's very selective, despite the fact that many women could become attracted to the most average guy in everyone else's book. So, it's picky... but not picky by standards. It's picky by particularity. It has to be that particular guy (or perhaps one of a few guys). So, it's a matter, for men, of maxing out their "ingredients" that have mass appeal and casting the net wide enough to find the women that are attracted to them particularly. So, I suppose the best thing to do is to get to know what type of woman tends to be the most attracted to guys that are kind of like you, and spending a lot of time around them. But there are never any guarantees because of the subjectivity of the whole thing. I personally can't even predict who I'll be attracted to before I get attracted to them. It's always a surprise when the feelings come up for a particular guy. So, the main takeaway here is that women experience attraction in a very multi-faceted way that is very hard to pin down objectively or logically.

That's true. I am being a bit generous with my numbers. But the main thing I was trying to drive across is that his ideological ways are not noticed by a lot of people. So, it becomes the pill inside the peanut butter, that people just don't notice they're taking But the example you brought up is a perfect example of how he twists things. In one video that I watched from him, he was talking about IQ. And he was saying that he had a client with an IQ of 85. And he had to teach that guy how to fold letters, and it took him over 40 hours to teach him just how to do that satisfactorily. Now, he never advocated for genocide of all people with low IQs. And he never made any implications about race in the video. But his entire comments section was rife with Alt-Right talking points about how "black people have an average IQ of 85". And lots of people were advocating for genocide against those who had lower IQs because of the burden that they place upon society. And there were lots of people mixing up both these lines of thought on race and IQ and ethnic/IQ cleansing. This was really the first time I had realized what he was doing. He even said in one of his videos, (paraphrased) 'Watch the effect that a person is having, and you will find their intentions'. And that really rings true with him. He never says anything for sure that you could point out as advocating for regressive and dangerous ideologies. But if you look at the effect that his words have on people, you will see the effect he's trying to have.

I don't believe that Jordan Peterson has that kind of power on his own. So, no, I don't believe that will happen because of Jordan Peterson. But if you look around, there is a regressive attitude that is quite contagious in the current state of society. And Jordan Peterson is like kerosene to that fire. So, even though I don't believe that society isn't in such a state that this type of thing is a danger at present, there are definitely some really disturbing regressive patterns that I see as a ticking time bomb. And this is true in many facets beyond gender as well. This was just a for-instance. So, I try to nip these patterns in the bud as I'm seeing them grow, because I want to do everything in my power to discourage regressive ideologies and the collective shadow from taking hold of humanity. But if you think our democracy is so strong that it could never succumb to regressive ideologies, then I would encourage you to question that notion. And if you think that 99% of people are on board with egalitarianism and democracy, I would encourage you to look around the internet a bit and really question whether or not that's true. People flip on those values easily... all they really need is a little push. I say the same thing because I see a wolf in sheep's clothing in Jordan Peterson. He has the veneer of an open-minded person, but he is anything but. But the particular point that JP was bringing up about women in male dominance hierarchies is just one example among many. And his worst affront doesn't have to do with gender specifically. It's his end goal of turning the world back "Blue", which would effect a lot of people negatively and would keep us going down the road toward repression of the feminine principle. The effects of which stretch far beyond gender, and have the lion's share to do with how people treat the Earth itself. So, I consider these regressive ideologies an enemy to the planet itself. And if there are huge swaths of the population buying into the words of someone like Jordan Peterson, I consider it a loss less likely that humanity will make the jump in time to salvage the planet. So, understand that this is why I try to really stick this point. The worldview that he's advocating for assumes certain things to be true, just like any other worldview. That's the way every worldview works. It has no truth on it's own. But worldview have certain assumptions of truth, and then all the other beliefs within the worldview are scaffolded upon those assumptions. And then beliefs are stack on beliefs are stacked on beliefs until you have something that seems solid and airtight. And when you have a worldview, there are certain ideas that are logical conclusions that stem from them. So, because he advocates for a Blue worldview, the most logical conclusions to come through from that worldview are that men and women should cleave to traditional gender norms or the social order will get thrown out of whack. And the idea that men and women should both be able to step out of the traditional gender norms are logically inconsistent with the inherent assumptions of the Blue framework. It's only when you get more into the Orange framework that breaking free of limiting gender norms makes sense and is logically consistent. So, yes. With Jordan Peterson's worldview that he advocates for, the most logical conclusion within it is that men and women are best following traditional gender norms, and that deviation from this "natural" order is causing social decay. Therefore, if you want to stop social decay, get women out of male dominance hierarchies and back at home taking care of children. But this is only a logical conclusion if we're trying to regress society back to an earlier form of itself... which is what Jordan Peterson is trying to do. But again, this is just one example of Jordan Peterson's advocacy for regression.

I didn't say it 95% good advice and 5% poor advice. I said it's 95% good advice laced with 5% regressive propaganda to convert people to his ideologies. So, it isn't a matter of him just giving some shabby advice here and there. He's very calculated with how he gives his advice, as he hides his agenda in it. And his agenda is dangerous. Stating that men and women are generally different is true. But it's the implications that are left open in Peterson's "musings" (which are really just regressive talking points posed as open contemplations), that make his rhetoric dangerous to progress. It's his disguise as an open-minded intellectual that throws most people off of his ideological agenda that is the beginning, middle, and end of the influence that he wants to have. Now, you ask me to give you the claims that he's made that are false. I'm sure he's made some false claims before. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about some false claims that Jordan Peterson accidentally made. I'm talking about purposefully placed regressive propaganda, that implies the impetus for societal regression. For example, if we go back to the statement "men and women are generally different." This is true from some perspectives and untrue from others. But regardless of the truth in the statement, it's the fact that he will make this statement then he will muse about the potential implications. Like saying, "Due to these differences, can men and women really co-exist in the workplace?" or "What do we do now that women have come to be in male dominance hierarchies?" or "Why don't we ban women from wearing make-up (which is only for sexual provocation, anyway) in the workplace?" And he poses these as just one question out of a litany of questions, so that he seems like a fair-minded person just exploring all the perspectives in the free marketplace of ideas. But this is not what he's actually doing. What he's actually doing is leaving it to his audience to connect the dots that women and men can't co-exist together in the workplace and that women don't belong in male dominance hierarchies. And from there, it's only logical to come to the conclusion that all of the liberation that women have had in the past 60 years has been a wrong move and that we need to go back to more patriarchal times where women stayed at home and had kids and men went out and worked in the dominance hierarchy. And perhaps if we did that, the social decay would cease and the "golden age" would return. So, the dangerous part is not the falsehoods that he states. The dangerous part is how he NEVER MAKES A REGRESSIVE CLAIM, yet he muses on regressive things in front of an impressionable audience just enough to have them connect the right dots on their own. And he knows what people will generally do with those musings. And this tactic is done on purpose, so that he can divest himself of any responsibility for claiming, "Women and men can't work together, so women need to get out of male spaces." And he can divest himself of that because he never made that claim... he just mused on it in front of his impressionable young male viewers. Most people won't see that this is what Jordan Peterson is doing. But it's really clear if you look at his whole shtick. So, no. I can't point to a single claim that JP ever made that is dangerous. He never puts the dangerous stuff in his claims. He keeps it in his musings.

Most people will react that way to you if you bring up these types of topics, as they see no value in it. Their eyes will just gloss over most of the time. Or they'll get uncomfortable because they're afraid they can't keep up with someone who's into dense topics and that they'll be judged. But to tell you the truth, as a woman who is genuinely interested in these types of topics, I don't care much whether the guy I'm into is interested in them. I really only care about how his personality and mannerisms are and how that mixes together with his looks and lifestyle. Common interests are nice, but they don't make an attraction. So, if a woman doesn't share those common interests, it especially isn't going to make an attraction. She'll just react like most people... eyes glossing over, wondering if you're crazy, and/or intimidation by the dense nature of the topics. So, in the immortal words of Shania Twain... "That don't impress me much." But seriously, listen to that song, and it pretty much gives you an insight into how women DON'T get attracted to guys, and how any individual positive quality doesn't really make a dent. That said, he has to be able to carry on a conversation with me. That's a must. I have to be able to have deep conversations where I feel like we're on the same wavelength, otherwise it would be a major damper in the relationship. But if a guy showed me he was interested in personal development, non-duality, etc., I would be like, "Oh hey. Me too." And I would log that in my mind like, "That's cool." But it's not a turn-on. I know a ton of guys who are into this stuff, and I'm not attracted to any of them. It's just kind of like, "Oh cool. We probably share some commonalities." But it doesn't spark any interest beyond platonic interest... the heart and libido want other things.

No. I live in St. Augustine. So, it's a pretty mellow town. I think it was the fact that I was a young female street musician who worked at night on a pedestrian street. If I were in a bigger city, I'm sure it would have been way worse.

I agree. He knows how to be sneaky about his agenda and appeal to most people. That's why he's so popular and effective with his rhetoric, which doesn't even register as rhetoric to most people. He's an excellent mask-maker, so a lot of people don't see the mask.

I agree. And he probably remembers a time in the past where he didn't have that conflict, and sees that time through rose-colored glasses. This is a common thread for those that are enamored by the archetype of the golden age. They believe that the best times are behind us, and now there is no goodness in the world because we've strayed from the traditions of the "golden age". But really, it's just an internal conflict projected out onto the world. And a deep longing for a time that occurred long ago.

Yes. But I think that he thinks he's being dishonest for a good reason. He thinks he's fixing society by bringing us backward and what he considers a more "natural" way of being. So, he's willing to be manipulative and dishonest for his mission. The problem is that he has things wrong, and he's actually bringing us back into something we've already outgrown and is really just causing issue for women and people who don't conform to gender roles.

Thank you.

Not only do I believe this, I think it's quite obvious if you listen to his work. He is very anti-progress, and seems to credit the social progress of women over the course of the past several decades for the social decay he perceives. So, if you listen to his work, it's really clear that he wants to bring up a lot of the social mores of yesteryear... especially relative to women's place in the world.