Emerald

It is a really a yucky feeling to look at it, for sure. They really have no clue how actual real human women are. But these guys really do actually believe what they say and what the propaganda tells them. So, men who buy into the propaganda, put themselves in all kinds of negative mindsets and really do see women as both super-human and sub-human at the same time. It's almost as though they psychologically put women up on a pedestal and see them as automated worth-conveyors for men. Then, because they don't like the fact that women are on a pedestal in their minds, they psychologically drag their idea of women down from that pedestal and stomp on it to lessen the women's perceived power in determining their worth. But that's only because they feel powerless, and they want to blame someone for that powerlessness. The best advice I can give to them is to get away from the computer and interact with real people in life. It's the isolation behind a computer screen that takes the humanity out of all interactions. If Tinder is the only dating experience that someone's had, it's really distorting natural dynamics. And it's easy to confabulate the worst narratives around women's attraction because it doesn't work similarly to men's attraction. But the isolation allows them to dehumanize and objectify women by thinking of them in a two-dimensional way. And they are psychologically enslaved to their image of womanhood, which is the main way that they experience women is through that image. So, because that image has power over them, they cope with it by projecting powerless onto it. Kind of like in the third Harry Potter when they used the 'Ridiculous' spell on the Boggart, making something scary seem trite or silly. It's the same idea. So, when they create/believe these narratives, it's basically them projecting their own tendencies toward objectification and dehumanization onto women. They think that women are attracted to men in a similar way to the way they're attracted to women. But women who are genuinely attracted to a guy, are anything but objectifying and dehumanizing. They like a guy just because of how he is, and NOT how closely he matches arbitrary objective standards.

It is a really a yucky feeling to look at it, for sure. But these guys really do actually believe what they say and what the propaganda tells them. So, men who buy into the propaganda, put themselves in all kinds of negative mindsets and really do see women as both super-human and sub-human at the same time. It's almost as though they psychologically put women up on a pedestal and see them as automated worth-conveyors for men. Then, because they don't like the fact that women are on a pedestal in their minds, they psychologically drag their idea of women down from that pedestal and stomp on it to lessen the women's perceived power in determining their worth. Basically, it's them projecting their own tendencies toward objectification and dehumanization onto women. They think that women are attracted to men in a similar way to the way they're attracted to women. But women who are genuinely attracted to a guy, are anything but objectifying and dehumanizing. They like a guy just because of how he is, and NOT how closely he matches arbitrary objective standards.

Most of this thread is exactly what happens when people of one gender assume that people of the other gender get romantic attractions in the exact same way. Men tend to look for women who are more physically attractive and as long as they are over a certain level of physical attractiveness, they will be attracted. It's a very objective qualifier. That's how men get attracted to women in the initial stages, using a small list of objective qualifiers. Women tend to have no list of objective qualifiers, if they're using their intuition. She will not necessarily even be looking for a guy. But then she talks to a guy, and she doesn't feel something right away. Then, she's by herself and she's thinking about that guy and she notices that she feels something pleasant. So, she thinks of him more, and more pleasant feelings come. And before the five minutes it through, she's very into that particular guy. It's not because he's a super-model. It's not because he's successful. It's not because of how much money he has. It's not because of any of those things. It's simply because he is who he is. It's pure chemistry. But it is highly selective. Very few men will ignite that response in a particular woman. Everyone else will be neutral. But the fact that you've yet to ignite that response in someone, isn't because you're not in the top 20% of guys or whatever. It's because you don't spend time around a lot of women to even ignite that response in the first place. Plus, women tend to be attracted to men who mirror themselves including in level of perceived value. For example, I feel 100% platonic toward super-model looking guys because they're more attractive as men than I am as a woman. So, I don't want to feel lesser. I want to feel like a catch. So, I'm much more likely to get attracted to a guy who's even with me or slightly less attractive than me than I am to get attracted to a guy who's more attractive than me. But it will never be the physical looks that attract me. I'll be attracted to him because of how he makes me feel, first and foremost. So, all you guys have to do is open yourself up and go out and talk to women. Eventually, someone you meet who fits your list of objective qualifiers will develop an intuitive attraction to you. But don't let Tinder statistics bog you down. Women can't use their intuition over the internet. So, they have to use the more masculine mode of attraction on there to determine who they'll choose for a date by using objective qualifiers. But this isn't how real life works. Tinder is just technology, which paints a totally different picture of romance/dating that's not actually accurate.

No worries. I didn't take it that way. I read your message earlier. But I've been working really hard on editing a video for my channel. So, I haven't had the opportunity to reply. I'll probably get to it tomorrow or the next day. I'm going out of town tomorrow, but I may be able to carve out some time.

@Spacious I just think you're looking at things that you're identified with, and labeling them as Green because you think "Green=Good" and think lower stages are bad. But these videos just aren't examples of predominantly Green thinking. You might resonate with them, but they're still objectively Orange and Blue ways of thinking about things, predominantly. Maybe the Big Think guy is more geared toward Green in general. I see that he's not in resistance to Green. But that video was from an Orange perspective, and I've never heard him speak on other topics. Edit: I have to go post a video to my YT channel. So, I'll come back to your arguments later.

@Spacious All the videos on Jordan Peterson (I didn't watch your videos on him that you posted because I've seen quite a lot of Jordan Peterson's stuff) His main talking points are usually him trying to use archetypal understandings of religion (Blue) to solidify traditional norms (Blue). He is also of the belief that we live in a meritocracy (Orange) that sends the best and the brightest to the top. Basically, that the free market and capitalism (Orange) are fair or mostly fair sorting methods for hierarchical status (Orange). He is also very resistant to Green, and he sees most initiatives toward equality as steps toward social decay, dictatorship, and the crumbling of Western values (Blue) and Capitalism (Orange). These are very Orange and Blue fears about Green. So, he is in resistance to Green in the way that Blues and Oranges normally are. The video with Warren Farrell - He is talking about from an Orange and Blue perspective as well. He is Orange in the sense that he is viewing Feminism from the perspective of the workplace and capitalist hierarchies. He also is of the Orange belief that the workplace and the capitalist system works as a reliable meritocracy where if men are in the top positions it's because of the fact that they've worked for it more. He is Blue because he is harkening a lot back to traditions and gender roles. And in his focus toward gender roles, the underlying subtext is that they come from natural differences and not social constructs which is a very Blue idea. He is also anti-Green, and tends to view Feminism (Green) as unfair to men and misrepresents it as a movement against men, and uses the existence of men's issues to invalidate those focusing on women's issues. And because his entire argument is for the purpose of arguing against Feminism (Green), it means that he is in resistance to Green. Any viewpoint that is in resistance to Feminism will not be Green. The video with the short haired lady - Now this is a shorter video. So, all she really shows is a resistance to Green. She is displaying a resistance to Feminism (Green) and misrepresents it a movement against men. She also sees the word Patriarchy as a demonization of men, because of the fact that the word has the pre-fix "Pat" to it. So, this implies that she doesn't recognize Patriarchy as a real thing. This leads me to think that she's Orange. Oranges don't like to pay attention to unfair structures built into the social system. That's dangerous to their assurance that success and status is always rightfully earned and is a reliable metric for determining personal worth. They like to see society as a fair meritocracy where everyone is already on an equal footing within society. So, Oranges will tend to see Feminism as unfairly focusing toward women's issues, because they don't recognize the unfair social structures. They will think of that kind of unfairness as purely a past phenomenon and as an outgrowth of Blue... which they have a resistance to. Also, Orange women tend to convince themselves that the world sees them as equal to men, which enables them to ignore inequalities and climb in social hierarchies without noticing or caring about differentiated treatment. The Big Think video with the guy talking about the future of Capitalism- This one is 99% Orange and like 1% Green. He's Green in the sense that he thinks the future of Capitalism (Orange) might entail even more Capitalism (Orange) and more Socialism (Green). But all the rest of his points are very comfortably within Orange. He focuses toward Capitalism and talks about the benefits of the free market. He is examining market trends and is interested in new business models. He also has the idea that the meritocracy works and that those with the most money and success within the field of technology tend to be the most capable, most hard working, and most compassionate. Basically, the ideas that the cream will rise. He also shows resistance to Blue in the sense that he looks at having a regular 9 to 5 job as being inferior to being an influencer in the free market and the field of technology. He also sees those who are the biggest influencers and most tech savvy as being the best leaders. He doesn't show very much resistance to Green other than the uncertainty of what Green will mean for the free market. He thinks Green can be either bad or good but doesn't take a definitive stance. The one with the Red Pill documentary - Features a former Feminist that has turned anti-Feminist (resistance to Green) because she has recognized that men have systemic issues too (Green). But she sees the existence of male issues as somewhat of an invalidation of what Feminism (Green) is as a movement. Not entirely but somewhat. So, like some of the others above see Feminism as an ideology against men, so now does she in many regards. This is probably because of the reception she's gotten from Feminists who see the issues of her normalization of the MRA group. I'm sure that the Feminists pushing back at her exacerbate that effect. And she views recognizing the effects of patriarchy (which is a real systemic force) as anti-man because patriarchy has the suffix "pat." (Green in resistance to Yellow) So, she doesn't seem to recognize the unequal power structures that actually cause those issues for men (lacking Yellow), which actually come from the same structures that cause issues for women. So, because of this, she likely thinks that the system is already pretty equal (Orange). And she has chosen to ally herself more with MRAs (mostly Orange, but with a significant amount of Red and Blue) than Feminists(Green), who are fervently anti-Feminist (Red, Blue, Orange) and often anti-woman (Red, Blue, Orange) instead of listening to the concerns of men who are not allied with a hate group. So, it shows a lack of nuance, that I'm inclined to place in Orange. She lacks the systemic thinking (Yellow) to understand the effects of allying herself with those who espouse anti-woman sentiments. In fact, she views those anti-woman sentiments as being just a neutral marketing tactic (Orange). So, the MRA group is often based around a few legitimate issues, but its members use those issues as a way to invalidate Feminism (Green) as a movement and place the blame on women for creating those issues. So, the effects (intended or not) would be that the status quo is upheld within society (Orange with some Blue). So, hers is a little tricky to pin down because she is noticing some Green things too. I've heard some of her interviews before, and with regard to noticing the taboo of male pain and focusing on men's issues, I would say she is taking issues that require Yellow and trying to approach it from a Green mentality that tends to see things in a non-nuanced way still. Then, she ends up coming into some resistance to Green, and falls on the other side of the horse and normalizes an Orange/Blue/Red group who are very anti-Green. The effects of which, she thinks will be Green. But the effects it will likely have is just more validation of the Orange/Blue/Red perspectives within that group. So, I'd say she's an Orange/Green who lacks Yellow and ends up adding more resistance to Green in the process, thus maintaining the status quo of mostly Orange society. But the guy asking her questions is definitely Green (and a bit Yellow) with the things he is saying because of his concern for how she's approaching this topic.

@Spacious The videos you're posting aren't Green examples. They are examples of Blue and Orange resistance to Green. But they aren't Green in and of themselves. You might consider posting them in the Blue or Orange mega-threads.

That's okay. I do take this topic seriously. If you're interested in understanding a bit more about what I'm saying, you can watch this. It's very informative about the very social patterns that I was mentioning but goes into more specific detail and gives concrete examples of how sneaky rhetoric is used by the Alt Right. Plus, Contrapoints is just downright entertaining. Edit: I just watched it again after a long time of not watching it, and it's SOOO relevant to the conversation that we just had. Both sides of it. It starts getting down to the propaganda and rhetorical strategies at around 3:30 in the video. Oops! Forgot to tag you @billiesimon

I've listened to that song many time before. So, I didn't listen to it this time. Especially, because you were using it to call me paranoid. But it's a good song.

I'm literally just telling him something that's happening and telling him to watch out. But he still thinks I'm paranoid about this. Now, can I give you statistics? No. It's not really a quantifiable phenomenon. But you can notice various rhetorical devices being used by the extreme right to normalize their views by presenting themselves in such a way that has plausible deniability and a veil of normalcy. And once you see it, you can't unsee it. But it can be hard to get people to see it because they are very crafty at hiding their ideologies in positive euphemisms like "states rights" or "freedom of speech" or "being anti-identity politics." And people really eat up these euphemisms and repeat them all the time. But people on the left aren't necessarily the victims. It's the people who are at risk of being negatively effected, if the society write off the views of the left and see the left as being radical even when it's not, and sides more with the radical right over the moderate left (which gets mischaracterized as radical). So, it's not that the political left is the main victim. It's just that women, people of color, gay people, trans people, religious minorities, and disabled people will be victims if all left-wing politics geared toward addressing their issues is seen in the public eye as radical, regressive, and anti-freedom. But the intention is to make them seem that way by giving the least charitable representations of the social justice movements in terms of people and arguments.

Unfortunately, there is no true idealogical center. In reality, humans are capable of considering even Nazi-ism as the center, if that's what everyone else is doing. That's why being a Centrist means totally different things in different societies. Not knowing this about human nature, is what leaves the door wide open for a shift like that in the political climate. And not knowing this in our own nature and our assuredness in our own incorruptibility, is what leaves the door wide open for unwittingly aiding the Alt-RIght in gaining more an more of a foothold in mainstream society. And certain ideas when held onto dogmatically, even great ideas like freedom of speech, can create the necessary blindspots for those acting in bad faith (like Neo Nazis) to covertly take control of the narrative. And if you think there are no Neo-Nazis around, you should pay more attention. They do exist, and they are having effect on the Overton Window and doing a pretty good job at getting people to see them as legitimate. Take a look at how many people subscribe to popular Alt-Righters on YouTube. It's not a small number. That means that there are a ton of people who are at least sympathetic to those viewpoints.

That's funny. I never knew she was actually an intelligent and civil person. I've only ever seen her screaming in that one video. But yeah. This is the kind of mis-representation that proliferates in the anti-SJW videos. It just gets more clicks if you stir up more outrage. Fewer people will watch a video that says, "Feminist talking rationally about viewpoints" than a video called, "Triggered Feminist gets REKT by logic." And of course, hyper right-wing extremists in the Alt-RIght have fully embraced this pattern of YouTubers posting anti-SJW content as part of their rhetorical strategy, so that anyone who has a viewpoint that's left of center looks radical. Even TJ Kirk (who is on the left) did a lot of Anti-SJW videos, recognizes that this has paved the wave for people to weaponize videos of this sort and make the radical right look more reasonable by comparison to the radical (or not so radical) left. But yes. men's issues definitely deserve to be addressed. They're just too often used to disrupt and obscure the issues that Feminists are focused on. Basically, they should start a new conversation. But don't use that conversation to encroach upon a pre-existing conversation in the hopes that it will shut that conversation down.

You're welcome. Yes. Some Feminists are misandristic. But you have to understand that Feminism is a HUGE movement. So, there are millions of self-identified Feminists. And there are tons of different schools of thought within Feminism, many of which are at odds with one another. So, you could probably find some fringe groups of radical Feminists that are really anti-man. Or you can find some women who think Feminism is about hating men, and they don the title because they think that "Feminism is about hating men." But, by and large, that is an uncommon viewpoint in a seas of Feminist viewpoints that are geared toward dismantling social structures that disenfranchise women, and occasionally men and other minority groups. And the "Feminists are against men" argument is just another way to make the views of Feminists (or any woman advocating for her rights) seem less legitimate. And this ideas is weaponized all the same, by the same people that I mentioned above. But point being, you can't avoid having a few rotten apples in a movement as big and broad as Feminism. I guarantee you there are like five or six Feminist serial killers out there. But that doesn't have anything to do with Feminism. They just happen to be serial killers who identify as Feminists. Feminism isn't an exclusive group that screens everyone who identifies that way. So, you can't look at the behavior of a handful of individuals or even a whole group of radical individuals, and say it's a problem with Feminism. To truly criticize Feminism, you have to address the particular school of Feminism and criticize their beliefs or practices directly. Like, I will criticize the heck out of SWERFs and TERFs, because I disagree vehemently with their version of the Feminist ideology. But you really have to stop straw-manning me. I never said that Classic Liberals are Nazis. I said that Nazis are strategically targeting people who identify as Centrists and Classic Liberals for the proliferation of their own political agenda. And it's working INCREDIBLY well. They are really good at re-packaging the ideologies of the Third Reich into socially acceptable forms and marketing them out to moderates. And most people are totally unconscious to the dog whistles of the Alt-Right, which are designed to slip past the sensors of unconscious people who are assured of their lack of vulnerability to their rhetoric. So, if you think I'm being paranoid, I just hope you don't like peanut butter that much.

This meme uses hyperbole to illustrate a really common political pattern that can be observed. So, the meme actually contains a lot of truth. Now, Centrists (and the majority of people on the right) wouldn't support genocide at this point, because genocide is currently still an extremist view. Most people don't want to be lumped in with extremists. Most people like to think of themselves as moderates. And most people like to think of themselves as good, normal people who are on the side of righteousness who could never be influenced to do/support bad things like racism, sexism, etc.. But because Centrists' political alignment is relationally dependent on the Center Left and Center Right for context, Centrism will naturally shift as society shifts and the idea of what the Center is shifts with it. So, Centrists (like most other people) are often not very politically educated and choose the Center because it seems more reasonable. But they are often not principled and not standing on a firm foundation because their desire to be Center makes them easy to trick if the political environment starts changing or the goalposts start moving. And this is a problem, because there are extremist groups on the outer fringes of the right wing (KKK, Neo-Nazis, etc.), who realize this weakness and actively target Centrists with veiled propaganda that's designed to normalize extremist views and make them seem like they're closer to the Center and more reasonable. And truly, they don't have to seem reasonable in a vacuum. They just have to seem more reasonable in comparison to the left. That's what this meme is trying to illustrate. Centrists will think the people on the right are being more reasonable just because their willing to compromise more. It's kind of like sticking a pill in some peanut-butter so the audience doesn't realize. So, because these groups are acting in bad faith, they don't mind lying or using whatever political manipulation necessary to get extremist views circulating through society in a respectable package. So, they love to hide the pill of their radical viewpoints in ideas like freedom of speech, homeland security, traditions, the idea of personal responsibility, the idea of absolute equality, and being against the "radical" (or not so radical) left. The issue here is that most people who identify as Centrists are not very principled or nuanced with political thought. To call one's self a Centrist is easy. And they tend to miss the pill hidden in the peanut butter. And I'm sure that most people in Nazi Germany were both politically ignorant and identifying themselves with following along with what they considered to be the Center. Now, Classic Liberalism is actually a political stance. But the unfortunate thing is the Classic Liberalism also tends to be very susceptible to manipulation by the far right. Because they value freedom of speech a lot (which is good). But they value it without understanding that the appeals to the freedom of speech can be used as a dishonest rhetorical device by those operating in bad faith. That way, whenever someone on the left advocates for people in a protected class's rights to equality, it can be easily framed as an argument against freedom of speech. A lot of far right propaganda comes in the form of criticizing initiatives toward a more fair society as being 'anti-freedom' and 'anti-speech'. Now, of course, Centrists and Classic Liberals would never go for any argument that is openly pro-racist or pro-sexist. Those things are the things the 'bad guys' do only. But they would certainly support arguments against those who are anti-freedom and anti-speech no matter how righteous their stance was. And they would see the supposed "anti-speech" person as the bad guy in an interaction even if they are protesting someone who supports terrible things. So, all the Alt Right has to do is proliferate the idea that the left is anti-free speech and have that idea percolate through mainstream politics. That way, whenever there is an issue with hate speech or advocating for things that negatively effect people in protected classes, anyone who calls these things into question will get a lot of "pro-freedom of speech" arguments and accusations of being anti-speech. But saying that the left is against free speech is just a silencing tactic to put a gag on minority voices rising to the surface. So, it is ironically a huge attack on open public discourse. Because if you can put someone in the "anti-speech box" you don't have to listen to them. And if you can put someone in the "identity politics box" you don't have to listen to them. And if you can put someone in the "Cultural Marxism box" you don't have to listen to them. Richard Spencer who is a well-known white supremacist, uses freedom of speech in this way. He's all about advocating for free speech, and it makes him seem more normal. But in a video he made with another white supremacist, the other one asked him if he really supported free speech. He basically said, (paraphrased) 'No, but it's in the benefit of our movement to pretend like we do to attract people who are more moderate'. And it's not just him. It's a political strategy specifically to mainstream racist and xenophobic views in more attractive wrappers. I'm just trying to very thoroughly illustrate to you the potential dangers of your line of thinking. There is nothing intolerant about my viewpoint at all. I don't think you should be forced to believe in this or that. I'm not trying to silence you. I'm not even criticizing your character or throwing ad hominem arguments at you. And I can totally relate to your views because I used to believe the same exact things, so I understand that you're not acting in bad faith. And the core of your beliefs aren't bad. They just really lack in the area of nuanced, systemic thinking. And there are tons of radical people out there that are specifically strategizing to exploit that lack, to shift the Overton Window further to the right and make their views appear closer to center. But I won't concede, because I'm not wrong about the things I've said. You really do have some blindspots. So, you probably read my lack of compromise as being intolerant. Or you take my attempt to educate you as an attempt to shame you and vilify you or even glump you in with extremists. I need some evidence if you say that the Family Courts are run by Feminists. I tend to be pretty well educated on Left Wing talking points: the smart ones and the dumb ones. And I've never even heard them saying anything about Family Courts. Plus, I'm pretty sure the family court system is run by (mostly male) judges. And they are probably of the belief that women are superior care-givers, because a large percentage of people in society (who aren't Feminists) tend to believe that men are better in the workplace and women are better taking care of kids. But Conservative politicians would likely say that families should stay together, and bypass the "Who get the kids?" argument. Because there is no answer that would appeal to their supporter base. Conservatives would divide their audience if they said, "Women are superior at raising children and should get the kids", because they rely on the voter support of a lot of men who think that's unfair. They would also divide their audience if they said, "Men and women should raise the kids equally because both the mother and father are equally good caretakers of children." This would divide them because Conservatives tend to believe strongly in rigid gender roles and biological determinism. So, they probably wouldn't talk that much about family courts at all. They would just frame it as an argument against single parenthood. But I agree that all problems need to be solved. Unequal treatment of men in family courts is a huge issue. And the left isn't the best at addressing this one, because it is this issue is used to vilify and delegitimize the concerns of Feminists (and sometimes women in general) by placing them as the cause of that inequality. But the problem actually doesn't come from Feminists at all. It comes from common folk ideas about the inherent rigidity of gender roles. It comes form the very system that Feminists are attempting to dismantle.

My policy is to be thorough and honest. So, I often write long posts. And people have usually been really receptive to them, probably because of these two factors. At one point in time, when there were still '+' ratings, I used to have the most points on the entire forum other than Leo and like one other person who had a lot more posts than mine. So, I write the way that I do because people seem to respond well to it. But specifically for you, it would be nice for you to read it because you asked me questions and I took the time to answer them in great detail. For others, they can read it if they're interested and it would help them look at the situation more systemically and in ways they haven't before. And doing so, would also prevent people from falling into the most common spiritual, social, and political traps. But it was specifically for you and your questions.

The left doesn't want tolerance for terrorists and ISIS. The left wants tolerance for Muslims to be able to practice their religion peacefully without discrimination. But the reason why the left tends to be less receptive to men's issues is that they are often brought up as a cudgel to invalidate any sustained focus toward women's issues and to steer the conversation about women's issues over to a conversation about men's issues, thus showing why Feminism is invalid. And then the conversation gets brought to even less relevant ideas about how all things are essentially equal because everyone has problems and that everyone should just stop complaining and sit around campfires singing Cum-By-Ya together. And the effect of this conversation steering is that the person has essentially side-stepped the topic of conversation ENTIRELY to focus on totally different topics. So, wanting to talk about "men's issues" is often a dogwhistle that people on the left pick up on that others don't. When men's issues are brought up in relation to Feminism or as a way to invalidate Feminism, it's not really meant to focus toward men's genuine issues. It's mostly just a method of being able to control the conversation and steer it away from uncomfortable topics thus blocking any possibilities for change. Like, imagine if you were bringing up an important issue, then someone used your important issue to segue into a completely different topic. For example, imagine that you were at a place where everyone had pre-purchased a meal and were waiting to have it brought out. But they forgot to bring your meal out. So, you're trying to address that issue of not having any food with the workers, and the workers use your issue as a way to pivot the conversation about how they get hungry sometimes too. Then, they steer the conversation to some point about how it's not just you that deserves food... in fact, everyone deserves food. And how all people in the world should have food whenever they want it. And that even bringing up the fact that you didn't get your food is invalid because there are other issues out there. Then, they send you out of the kitchen without the food you paid for. But it's just them fast-talking you out of getting your meal. They were never concerned about world hunger in any serious way. They really just want you to stop bitching. But the left does actually focus on men's issues as well. It focuses a lot toward the effects of toxic masculinity on men and the social patterns that create a lot of self-esteem issues for men. They also are very critical of the rigid gender roles that give way to so much expectation put upon men to be stoic. And they are critical of the biological determinism argument that women are inherently better caretakers than men, which is the reason why men get the shittier end of the stick in family courts. That said, they do get a bad taste in their mouths about discussing issues like that because they are so often used to invalidate other issues. So, not knowing that the left also focuses on men's issues, just makes it seem like you've gotten most of your information on the left from Anti-SJW YouTube, where they find the lowest common denominator of the left. Then, they pass it off as though everyone on the left is some raging man-hater. There is also a huge attempt to make Feminism into a monolith, where everyone in that group has the same beliefs. But there are as many kinds of Feminism as there are flavors of ice cream. But if you're a Centrist, you should really question what center is first. And you should recognize that Centrism has no principles of its own because it always exists in relation to the most common poles of whatever the current political climate is in the place you live. So, Centrism in Nazi Germany is to be a Nazi. Centrism in a China is to be a Communist. So, basically, Centrism is a way for people to convince themselves that they have the principles of tolerance toward both sides as long as those sides aren't too far from the center. But too often, Centrism makes a person very non-principled in every other way. This makes Centrists very easy to manipulate by extremists because they often choose Centrism as a stand in for actual principles, and as a way for them to convince themselves that they have nuance. Centrists will often have the very same talking points as extremists because extremists specifically target them with their veiled rhetoric. The picture below is a good illustration of why Centrists are easy to manipulate into agreeing with harmful things. It uses the extreme example of genocide to show how dogged Centrism can be a huge weakness.

I have two kids also. My daughter is almost seven and my son is three. They're definitely a handful. So, I totally get the lack of time. The thing is, I've been exploring the ins and outs of this topic for quite some time. So, I do get emotional about it, but probably not in the ways you might think I do. Also, vocal inflection doesn't really come across through the internet either. My emotions are more about, "How can I explain this topic so that well-meaning but unconscious people understand?" And then getting frustrated when I fail. But I am highly invested in this topic because it's such a huge bottleneck to our integration as individuals (for men and women both) and the health and wholeness of humanity at large. And it's also just really clear that if we continue to orient in the masculine-principle-oriented way that we are now, that it will eventually lead to irreparable damage to the Earth's system. Also, it's weighing on our conscious awareness so heavily even as we speak and I feel it acutely. So, once I realized that humanity is in a trap, I've tried lots of things to get myself and others out of that trap. So, in every argument that I make, my ultimate goal is always that. Also, I've truly explored all the counter-arguments I'm aware of relative to my views on Feminism and its purpose in relation to the greater goal of the societal and individual integration of the Divine Feminine in grave detail. I even explore the ones that are really draconian and conceive of women as being inherently inferior to men. So, I look at no perspective as being irrelevant to my understanding of the entire system of this consciousness trap and how it works. And I see no aspect of history as being invalid. And I've asked a ton of uncomfortable questions to get deeper answers on this topic by allowing myself to sit with awareness in discomfort while I explore ideas that are deeply antagonistic to my very existence as what I am. And luckily, as a woman, there is no place yet in my journey into the depths of this topic for me to get 100% comfortable. So, I have to keep boring deeper and deeper into the topic and its many truths. Men are more likely to explore this topic, because there aren't a ton of uncomfortable truths for men relative to it. It's not as scary. But their bottleneck is that they often only go one or two layers down into the topic and basically settle in and get 100% comfortable and assured of the answers they've received. Some men even explore the topic simply to get confirmation of their own superiority to mask over deep feelings of insecurity and inferiority. And they get stuck in a part of the internal landscape that I call, "The Beautiful Nasty Place." But from the male perspective, it's mostly just "The Beautiful Place." This place has a strong animalistic, libidinal, psycho-sexual allure to it. For women, it has that same libidinal magnetism but is deeply tainted with the ancestral memory of the repressed and subjugated feminine. So, for a woman to stay in this place is a tepid mix of immense pleasure and immense pain. For men, it's a tepid and constant pleasure with a very manageable amount of pain that can be easily ignored. So, this place is often what puts men to sleep. This is because "What if I am actually superior?" is a much less effective tool for exploration of this topic than "What if I am actually inferior?" It's a bit easier to stay awake with the latter. So, the main way that I get emotional is that I get frustrated when I've tried to show people things I've discovered, and their worldview/beliefs gets in the way of their ability to even hear what I'm saying. Like, I say one thing. Then, they give me a completely unrelated argument to anything that I've just told them, because they didn't hear what I was actually saying... they only heard what their minds told them I was saying. And so, when some men get triggered by these topics, I see that it's just par for the course. It's part of the process. And I have a ton of empathy for it, but not really a lot of sympathy. It's like waking someone up and them hating it. Tons of empathy toward that experience because everyone's been there, but very little sympathy because it's not really that big a deal. Comfort zones must be left behind. But it's just an inevitability that some people will vigorously resist becoming aware. People don't like to come out of their comfort zone. People don't like being woken up. And a sleeping person will be able to rationalize in the most non-sensical ways to justify sleeping longer. For example, one time I fell asleep on the couch and my husband tried to wake me up and told me to go sleep in the bedroom instead. And I told him I couldn't because "the bedroom filter" was all wrong. I was working as a graphic design teacher at the time, and I was basically assured that the Photoshop filter that was (definitely) over-layed onto the bedroom just made it a bad place to sleep in. The couch made so much more sense because its Photoshop filter was better... apparently. But this rationalization only makes sense to a sleeping person. Really, I just didn't want to face the discomfort of waking up and moving to a different spot. So, my mind just came up with a reason to keep me asleep. And people who are invested in an aspect of the status quo, don't want the status quo to change. They don't want to be woken up. But it's not going to hurt them to wake up. It'll just make them uncomfortable in a way their not acclimated to. And if they can endure the discomfort and triggering, they will be rewarded with a deeper and broader understanding of themselves and humanity as a whole as well as living a much more integrated experience. So, if people are getting offended, it means that 'waking up' is happening.

He's definitely really good at selling bullshit to people. And I'm frankly surprised at some of the otherwise intelligent people he was able to dupe.

I hear ya brother! I totally agree. I think the silver lining to Trump winning the election is that all the previously unconscious negative things that lurked beneath the surface of collective consciousness, got a free pass to come out. And many on the right are feeling confident that the world is on the side of "reason" and "freedom" and "telling it like it is." But I think the average person, who is quiet in this political climate will skew more Green as a result. I've been relieved to notice that people who were very ambivalent or resistant to progressive movements in the past, are now seeing why it's so important for us to move forward. They've realized that there are problems that they didn't know were there before. And I was certainly a surprised at the way society reacted to this. That said, almost everyone from my hometown (a small redneck town in Florida) are huge Trump supporters... including my mom who was previously into a lot of Green initiatives. And I was so disheartened when he won the election. I felt sick the whole week. I didn't know that my mom even supported him, and I never would have seen it coming. She'd never mentioned either. So, the polarization is really uncomfortable. And people are either getting cemented further back into the old paradigm or growing through all the political unrest.

I would suppose it works similar to a chemical reaction of sorts. It destroys to make room for things that are new, like a control burn. War will always exist. Destruction is part of creation. We will never achieve permanent world peace. War is like bacteria, it's always going to be around and some of it is necessary to make systems work right. Just like the gut needs the right bacteria to be able to properly process food. But most of the time, bacteria is just nasty and comes as an outgrowth of an environment where bacteria can multiply easily. The bacteria only serves its own purpose. So, I think war is similar to this in so many ways too. Most war just exists because the conditions of the world are conducive to lots and lots of it. So, at present most wars simply act as the bacteria that grows in so many wounds. So, I have high hopes that in the future the human system won't be conducive to so much conflict and war. And when it does happen, it won't be for arbitrary reasons.

I totally agree with you about getting big business interests out of politics. That one change will make so much of a difference. Do you ever watch Secular Talk? The host was/is part of TYT network, and I really enjoy watching his news show. He's also a huge supporter of progressive politicians who run Bernie Sanders-esque grassroots campaigns. And I think that change will come quite quickly and will be totally paradigm shattering. I'm sure establishment politicians are genuinely having trouble sleeping at night at this point. But I'm still unsure whether Green thinkers are better at shifting society toward Green, or if Yellow thinkers are better at shifting society toward the next step whatever it may be. I guess time will tell.

I'm mostly kidding, but not really. Green has been integrating itself into society for the past 100 years. And if we had made no progress relative to Green, we'd be in an awful situation like this already.

Yeah. I do understand that. It's often the nastiest dirt, that grows the most beautiful flowers. But I guess I didn't ask it quite right. I was asking more about your opinion on what you think is wisest, if the end goal is to create a society that's more harmonious, integrated, and fair. Basically, if we want to take off the invisible fetters that keep humanity in a state of unhealth, unconsciousness, and fragmentation, would demonization like Cenk did in that video be wise or unwise toward that end? I'm always thinking about backfiring mechanisms and how things work counter-intuitively relative to the social and political sphere. And I can never quite decide exactly what's the wisest plan of action for the circumstances.

I agree that there's mutual criticism going on here, and tons of demonization going on coming from (Blue/Orange) Paul Ryan and demonization on the part of (Green) Cenk as well. And I agree that it's important to be nuanced and understand the psychology of perpetrators that purposefully or unconsciously feed into negative social patterns. So, demonization doesn't work well toward that end. It's a very unsystematic way to look at societal issues. However, I was curious what you think about this. Now, systemic thinkers won't demonize because they will understand things better. But perhaps a systemic thinker might also see the value in moving humanity upward on the spiral. So, in our case, a systemic thinker may see value in moving society from Orange to Green. Now, in the past, moving from stage to stage hasn't always been a smooth ride. In fact, some transitions between phases in Spiral Dynamics have often been very volatile and bloody. And demonization might have been part of those transitions, even though it is quite low consciousness. So, because the next step in our society's evolution will be from Orange to Green, would you say that demonization might be part of that turbulence that comes from the forward transition and those reacting against progress. I can't help but listen to Cenk and think, maybe his perspective is a little un-nuanced. But I also thank goodness that there are people like him who are shining light on the dog-whistlers who use terms like "Cultural Marxism" as a clever euphemism to hide their racism, xenophobia, sexism, homophobia, etc. People fall for that stuff really easily and because there's a lot of group-think on the right that's specifically antagonistic to progress, they're even less likely to realize that they're being tricked. So, what do you think? Do you think (counterintuitively) demonization and volatility actually serves a purpose in moving us forward as human beings in Tier 1 of Spiral Dynamics, despite the fact that demonization is a sign of unconsciousness? Or do you think that it serves no purpose or detracts from our movement forward as a species?

So, there may be no such thing as blackism, disableism, or gayism. But there's also no such thing as "womanism" either. But esoterically speaking, Feminism is a perfect word because it strikes right at the core of the end game of the movement. Most people in the movement aren't aware of this yet, but it's about the reintegration of the feminine principle, just as much as it's about gender equality. Society doesn't like the feminine principle as much as the masculine principle, and this imbalance causes a ton of issues from gender inequality, planetary destruction, imperialism, constant warfare, corporate greed, extreme poverty adjacent to extreme wealth, human objectification and exploitation, etc. Also, there are a ton of male Feminists out there. It's pretty common actually. It's basically anyone that allies themselves with the cause of gender equality and sometimes equality in general. Also, Feminism is a very effective 'whatever-works-ism'. That's why there's so much of a backlash against it. It's because it's being very effective at changing the status quo toward more consciousness around women's issues. And Intersectional Feminism is getting very popular too, which contextualizes all imbalances in power and examines their causes and unique problems. And it gives voice to so many perspectives that just weren't really mainstream before. But to focus only on giving equal opportunities is a very narrow and ineffective application of Feminism for our modern issues. Now, back in the 1960s, that's a different story. It was all about equal opportunities and making sure that women have a place in the workplace. But in our current era, it's much more about understanding and dismantling barriers to systemic inequalities that plague our society. And if we focus only on "glass ceiling" issues, it misses so much about a society that creates so many barriers to the reintegration of the Divine Feminine in society at large. And it also creates fragments in individuals (male and female) who are largely unaware of their feminine sides or are actively repressing them due to anti-feminine attitudes that proliferate within society.