Derek White

You made these up, like boogeyman. What is masculinity and feminity, a set of traits? Values? A feeling? Is swearing masculine or feminine, what about working? It’s the same as categories in fantasy. Your masculinity and femininity is like saying “be more like Gryffindor or be more like water benders” you can invent other inities too It’s a self biased framing at that, you have defined everything bad and survival oriented as masculine, stage red, blue and orange; and everything good and holy as feminine, stage green and above. Female biased completely. Open the door for women to feel superior to men, when in reality I see just as many stage blue and orange women as men. You take your perspective so seriously, as if it’s objective reality. It’s just one perspective you made up. Also, see the Trudeau example.

No! Don't let people make you believe absurdities. There are so many benefits to being attractive!

I didn't say it was inaccurate or accurate. I just don't like it. Opens door for fights between men and women. Something neutral/secular is less divisive.

Maybe you should watch those antifeminist videos or just people who criticize the left. I don't save these things on my computer when I come across them, I ignore them and move on. Okay here's one, Justin Trudeau's 50-50 women to men split cabinet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnWJ-l5aRLA&ab_channel=CBCNews%3ATheNational https://theconversation.com/trudeaus-new-cabinet-gender-parity-because-its-2019-or-due-to-competence-126646 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-trudeau-liberal-government-cabinet-1.3304590

You’re right. It’s just that lately I’ve been questioning the limitations and biases of spiral dynamics. And according to that the North American societies are suppose to be the most advanced but if I self reflect and focus on my personal experience, I don’t really see that many satisfied people. They are kind of dysfunctional and not as smart or successful as they should be. I’m not that convinced that the culture here is “better” than say India’s (where I grew up). I live in Canada too which is suppose to be greenish. My “Indian” values work really well too. I think I’m coming off too strong in my recent posts. Gotta be careful with words, don’t wanna offend peeps. I just don’t like the wording. I don’t like the words “masculine” and “feminine”. I get what you’re saying. Idk, intuitively, the spiral dynamics model seems kind of iffy to me... maybe I’ll make a post detailing all it’s limitations and biases in the future. Idk, think I’m going yellow with green backlash. Maybe, might be wrong.

The videos I linked had the tweets in them. She is arguing for equality of outcome, “repeat the mistakes of ancient industries” means being sexist to women. Industries in the past discriminated against women, that’s what she meant. Typical, crying about small things. No, youtube is not “corrupt” or against women. It is always recommending me sssniperwolf. The CEO is a woman too. She never even used the word “system”. This is just one example, you can find so many, do your due diligence, find them yourself.

I don’t like this framing. Personal preference. Also, it’s so self serving, as a woman, to say the whole world is moving toward integrating femininity. In my personal experience, all the “stage green” types I know are not very happy or successful people. They are complacent and engage in group think. The more I, to use your word, “integrate” individuality and pragmatism the better my life gets. I think individuality (masculine trait from your framing I believe) is going to become more relevant given that the internet is influencing us so much now. We will need to remove ourselves from it to engage in independent thinking. We can’t think individually when we are focused on other people so much.

Ask 10 people about "feminine principals" and you will get 10 different answers. And then you will have others who say there are more than two genders. Values are values, labelling them as "masculine" and "feminine" does nothing (but polarize us). Gentleness is gentleness, there's nothing feminine or masculine about it.

There is ton of stuff online of feminists saying dumb stuff if you really care about understanding this, it's willful ignorance on your part. Lilly Singh is a great example, there are way funnier people but they gave a late night show to her. Here are some drama channels covering it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_o6o-gypOKw&ab_channel=AngelikaOles https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9f4s075tRw&ab_channel=ThatsSoJames I don't want to extend this argument forward, it's not worth it. I know from experience that there are so many flaws in modern western feminism. It's the complacency for me, not just of feminists but of the whole "woke" culture. They should spend some time in a third world country to see how privileged they are. I can't get myself to care about western feminism, not when there are kids starving on the other side of the world. Also there's the lack of individuality and the tendency to devolve into group think.

I will, I don’t have time right now. It’s gonna derail the thread too.

“We are going to treat women a bit better because they were teated poorly in the past.” Okay, then don’t talk about fairness. And don’t be surprised when men find you hypocritical and think it’s a bit unfair. That’s speculation. She didn’t do that.

I have heard feminist argue for equality of outcome in personal life and online, so there you go. One example I can think of on top of my head was when Lilly Singh said she was very disappointed and accusatory when there were no women in a top 10 highest earning Youtubers or something like that. That was arguing for equality of outcome from a big media personality. That's just one example, there are so many more.

We can flip this around and ask feminists this same question, "why are you so insecure if men get treated a bit better?" Why don't you ever ask that of the other side? Why don't we treat poor people, ugly people, and weak people a little better? Why does it have to be on gender lines? And it's not just about treating women a bit better, if we are treating them a bit better at least be honest about it. The last line literally applies to feminists talking about the "pink tax".

It doesn't come out that way when you do it, but okay. Sadhguru too, like he said, is only criticizing the "bits and pieces" of Vedanta people pick up. To me, it's obvious he's not completely dismissing Vedanta. It's his style to talk in a causal manner, don't expect a detailed and nuanced speech from him. It's not his style. He's not a professor.

Really? You strawman spiritual schools like Zen and Christianity, and ideas of people like JP all the time and then you say "oh, I'm just criticizing what their followers believe in to make a point. I'm just making a point. Of course, True Christianity would be... !" You strawman a lot of other stuff too, just take a look at your replies to this thread: Sadhguru does the same thing, you can find videos of him praising Adi Shankaracharya. You do it too.

He’s criticizing the “bits and pieces” of vedanta that people pick up. He is right this time, there’s no point in believing everything is maya when you’re living in society. If you don’t have the guts to renounce everything, even your life, then it’s better you don’t talk about everything being maya. Telling some young adult that everything is maya (or meaningless) is irresponsible. It can ruin their life for the worse. You exaggerate things to make a point all the time. He is doing the same thing. You tell people to chase states of consciousness and a life purpose yourself.

You guys are saying the same thing in different ways. I looked back, I don't see it. Maybe you need to read what he said again and see it's the same. This is just an ego clash folks, I'm going to sleep.

I don't think Leo disagrees with any of this. This is what I get from what he teaches. So, what part of this does Leo disagree with according to you? What he's saying is for a lot of women, a lot not all, the "character" is less important. Of course, for conscious women, the other kind of masculinity, the strength of character, will also be important or more important. I think the part that Leo is trying to highlight is that women are attracted to power and strength (not exclusively). Most men DO NOT know this, so that's why he put so much emphasis on it. Like I didn't even know women were attracted to taller guys until like grade 11 or 12. It didn't come intuitively to me, it actually came as kind of a surprise.

I guess people just come here to get validated.

Women don’t have to be bitchy. They just choose the most powerful men in a group. There are plenty of women out there telling other women to choose the “strongest men” and avoid “weak men”. I even heard that women purposely try to have sex with athletes to get pregnant. What’s so hard to understand about women wanting to make the most powerful man to like her? If he falls in love with her he would protect her at all cost. It comes our stage red past. That’s how women survived back then. In a stage red society she’s not going to want a “weak man” no matter how amazing mg he is, and that wiring is still with us. We are talking about “most” women and men; you’re talking about women who are less than 5% of the population. You paint all women as angels. No, Leo is not telling us to be assholes. You’re acting so dense, didn’t expect that from you. That’s going to stop you from seeing the truth.

It's just a term for desis born in north america.

Wow. Alright, it’s just a term that’s fun. You kind of didn’t, you didn’t even mention that they were desi. That changes things... by a lot. I still don’t know exactly why you are annoyed by them other than they are kind of conservative and you had a rough childhood (like most SAs). I mean, I would just recommend that you listen to advice from other SA people from YouTube. Other people don’t really know the situation, they’ll just tell you to move out, and maybe you’ll have to do that idk. In my experience SAs will give better advice on how to deal with SA parents.

Lol ABCDs hate their parents. Why exactly do you hate them? Do they stop you from doing something? I feel like you have unfair expectations from them.

Do you have any tension or anxiety in your real life? Usually these issues transfer over to your dreams in cryptic ways, especially if you are ignoring them. So, maybe people shifting to animals indicates you are afraid someone in real life would cheat on you or betray you. Maybe you are afraid that things in your life can change very fast for the worse. Do you have trust issues or uncertainty in your life? Not being able to move your body after a nightmare is normal. You can do one more thing, when you sleep at night, if the nightmare comes, try to imagine a different scenario. So say you’re dreaming and people turn into animals, then try to imagine something pleasant, like you’re having fun or sex. Just something really beautiful to contrast with the nightmare, this may make you lucid dream or remove the nightmare all together. When you go to bed, actively keep a beautiful image in your mind (eg: image filled with roses, beautiful women, red and pink, hearts, etc.) and visualize beautiful and pleasant things. Before bed, try to be positive and optimistic about tomorrow. When you wake up after a nightmare, immediately go back to sleep and become more and more aware of the nightmare. The nightmare will lose its power that way. Subconsciously, you are afraid that something or someone will turn bad and harm you in your life. What are you avoiding/ignoring in your life? I think solving that will be the best solution.

I just finished listening to Leo’s Sherlock Holmes’ blog post. I can’t help but notice that Leo didn’t mention that dreams are a great way to go orthogonal. They’re also a great way to describe life. Life is basically a dream in which the brain is an object that can be manipulated to make the dream more or less lucid. Dreaming or daydreaming is unconscious imagination, when you become conscious of this it becomes conscious imagination or just imagination. One of the questions asked in the video was, what would you do to make Sherlock Holmes realize he’s fictional? My answer would be to give him dreams. Lucid dreams where he can control his dreams, and dreams where he is playing a completely different character, or dreams that feel very real. Maybe dreams within dreams or dreams where he doesn’t even have a dream. All this would make him question his own paradigm and move orthogonally. If I am Arthur Conan Doyle, I would write the story to make him have dreams, or if I’m limited to a character in the stories, I would make him have dreams through hypnosis or some other techniques. In the end, I think dreams are a good analogy for life and a good way to move away from the “brain” and “simulation” type problems. I also think it’s kind of weird that Leo didn’t mention it because that is the first place my mind goes to when I think about these types of problems.