Xonas Pitfall

Can you help me understand what you wanted to say with this? I’m not denying that men are struggling. Life is hard. But, what’s your solution? Should we beat women down so men feel better about themselves? I don’t understand why my point can’t be valid while also acknowledging that men are suffering as well. In this post, I was simply acknowledging areas where women are neglected, as they also experience their own difficulties. If the thread were about how to help men with their "mediocre" lives, I’d write different things, of course. I want to help both genders.

@OBEler I don’t have much information on that; I’d have to verify those statistics. Thank you for sharing! But nonetheless, as I stated, I don’t necessarily care who performs better, since my goal is just to enable smart and ambitious people (no matter their gender) to do the business and work they want to do. The reason I shared those stats was to show that women are certainly capable of excelling in both academics and business, contrary to popular belief, “red-pill” ideas that women just want to cook, clean, and do makeup, and are useless and unable to learn anything else. The original point remains that they can be capable in both academics and business. My intention and concern with these kinds of posts is that, while it’s fine to have an understanding that genders are different, we shouldn’t overly stereotype to the point where we say things like, “Women cannot succeed in business unless there are men around”, "Women are too stupid for study, academics, logical and rational thinking." If I evaluate the increasing number of capable women in business, academics, and education, many of whom are achieving far more than would have been believed possible in history, it becomes clear that this isn’t really a gender issue. It’s more about enabling people, regardless of gender, to go out into the world, explore, and pursue their goals. Ultimately, I just want men who want to succeed to do so, and women who want to succeed to do so as well. Whether a man or a woman might perform better overall, I don’t really care, because people have different interests and ambitions. There are men who are so unambitious that they never want to do anything with their lives, and I’d gladly have a woman run a business she’s passionate about instead of them. Similarly, there are women who are equally unambitious or uninspired, and I’d be just as happy to have a man do the work. I just don’t want to enable or disable anyone unnecessarily, if that makes sense, and I worry these kinds of examples and narratives do that subconsciously in our society, so I wish to correct them. Hopefully that makes sense!

This is currently happening across all education, college-level included. Higher Graduation Rates for Women: According to data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), women have outpaced men in terms of graduation rates from colleges and universities in many countries, including the U.S. In the U.S., women now earn more than 57% of all bachelor's degrees and a similar proportion of graduate degrees. Men, on the other hand, have shown a decline in college attendance rates over the past few decades. Academic Performance: A report by the American Council on Education indicates that women consistently perform better academically in high school and college in terms of GPA and test scores. The research points to a variety of factors, including women being more likely to attend college and finish their degree compared to men. International Comparisons: In several countries, such as the U.S., Canada, and many parts of Europe, women outperform men in education. In fact, women represent a growing majority in college populations, with countries like the U.S. and the U.K. seeing a steady increase in female students in higher education over the last few decades. Additionally, female-led companies often have steadier, long-term growth. MSCI reported that companies led by women saw 10‑point better returns on equity over time. Male-led companies may pursue faster growth, but often at the cost of higher risk and volatility. In contrast, female-led companies often achieve more sustained and stable growth. During crises like the pandemic, firms led by women were perceived as less risky, had better credit quality, and weathered downturns more reliably than male-led firms. A large-scale study of nearly 99,400 global firms found that companies led by women consistently outperformed male-led ones on exploitation metrics, such as productivity, innovation, and capacity utilization, but showed lower growth in sales and aggressive expansion behaviors like asset acquisition. Now, I don’t necessarily care about who is outperforming whom; my point is that it was once believed women were absolutely incapable, stupid, irrational, and too dumb to even pursue any kind of education, let alone college-level work, PhDs, or CEO positions. The idea that they could outperform men was considered insane. That’s what I mean when it comes to over-stereotyping. I agree that there are gender differences, but we have to be careful not to make mistakes like this one that heavily overstep and damage society overall. We need intelligence, and the more we tell people they’re not meant to be smart or capable of survival, the more harm we do, not just to that gender, but to society as a whole. If a woman is intelligent, we should encourage her, because we need more bright minds to elevate society. These narratives can be extremely damaging and subtly creep into our subconscious. You probably don’t believe that black men are somehow inferior to white men, right? I’d hope not. Yet, no one is using the argument, “Oh, why aren’t there any black inventors or scientists? It always seems to be predominantly white people who are seen as the innovators! This is why white supremacy is the truth! White men are superior to black men!" We often forget this argument when it comes to women and how much they’ve been suppressed throughout history.

I think what she meant is that a lot of the male generalizations and judgements about women are a bit "cock-blocked," haha. For example, what I've said above: It’s more appealing to puff yourself up as this strong, rational, intelligent man while portraying her as this helpless, lost, and stupid damsel who desperately needs your leadership, even though she might actually have a lot of intelligence in that area. Also, as I said above, please be careful with nitpicking examples. I can also do this: Oh my god... See!? Clearly, women are often far more capable and adaptable when it comes to handling life’s challenges. (Ironic, of course! ) And just to clarify, no one here is saying that we don’t need each other, absolutely not. I believe gender harmony and synergy are some of the most beautiful things ever. The issue here (at least mine) is labeling "stupid, dysfunctional" behavior as feminine when they don’t need to be, which does a disservice to women. This, in turn, causes people to subconsciously lose respect and start believing things like, “Women don’t like technology at all; women are drama queens; women are useless in survival situations." That's all.

This argument makes very little sense. It’d be the same as if I said, “Oh... wait until a strong army invades your country, and you'll see how little men care about video games, higher philosophy, and truth-seeking. Wait until a strong army invades your country, and you'll see how little women care about doing makeup and shopping.” No shit, haha. In such a scenario, men would likely hyper-focus on physical strength, weapons, and strategy, while women might rely on either developing strength and similar strategies themselves for survival or leveraging other strategies, such as seduction, psychological manipulation, or deceit, or depending on men for protection. When there’s war, people fall into survival strategies that are more beneficial to them, since they are desperate and need to survive. The modern world is all about making us feel safer so we can explore more and gain a higher understanding, intelligence, and diversity, which in turn elevates society further. Actualized.org would have never been able to exist in a war zone. But that’s the whole point of human evolution: you create more technology and safety nets so people can explore beyond their natural instincts and move beyond mere survival, thus expanding consciousness. No one here is denying that there are gender differences; the question is how much of them are actual and whether we are overly stereotyping things that shouldn't be stereotyped. A good example of this is the education system. Throughout history, there was a widespread belief that women were too stupid, irrational, and incapable of serious thinking. Now, with women outperforming men in education, the narrative has shifted to, “Oh, of course! You’re just being yielding and pleasing to the teacher; that’s a ‘girl thing!’” In reality, nothing about the education system has changed over the years. This shift in narrative when it doesn’t work in men’s favor is a perfect example of how "stereotyping" can go wrong.

Upvote!

Bless You! 🤍

Thank... you?

Precisely so!

@OBEler Got it! Just wanted to offer some advice, as I don’t think your intent was malicious. I simply want to highlight how your presentation might come across and where things could have been framed differently. Please acknowledge this in your future posts and be cautious not to pick out examples that fit self-fulfilling biases. It can mess with your worldview, causing you to keep finding examples that support your narrative. Just look at the whiny red-pill podcasts that focus only on men’s issues and complain about how no women want them. This is equivalent to finding women who constantly talk about how important women are in science, focusing on their gender instead of addressing the actual scientific research. The reason you received negative backlash wasn’t necessarily because you were presenting something "controversial," but because it came from a biased perspective. For instance, in your original post, if you wanted to make your point effectively, you should have found examples where both men and women act foolishly in their own ways. That would have been a more balanced assessment of how we all act foolishly, albeit in different ways, to highlight the differences between men and women (which you initially wanted). Instead, it seemed like you were saying that any intellectual pursuit by women is for selfish reasons or done in a "cringeworthy" manner, while men, as you put it, "don't do fake drama", "love actual technology." I’m just saying to be careful, because this stuff can easily creep into your subconscious. Leo himself has pointed this out in many ideology-based videos: you are thinking you're just telling the truth, and people don't like how the truth sounds, so that's why they are attacking you. From your perspective, you see these points as true, and it can feel like women and "soft men" are just attacking you because they want to live in their delusion. This, in turn, reinforces your worldview. But as you saw in this thread, both genders attack in genuinely foolish ways, just expressed differently. Hope I’m making sense. Let’s say I wanted to present the differences between men and women, and then I show examples of guys wasting their lives on OnlyFans, playing video games, having no jobs, raging on 4chan forums, and being Trump supporters. Then, I present women as hardworking, self-sacrificial angels and mothers. I can claim I care about the truth all I want, but the examples I’ve chosen to focus on and nitpick clearly show that I have a biased perspective I want to present, or perhaps unconsciously believe in. That’s why it would be expected of me to receive backlash, since I’m claiming to care about the truth, yet presenting such a biased perspective. So, if you ever engage in this topic again, please be careful how you present your original argument and the types of examples you give! Personally, I have no issue with your premise, and I do notice the differences myself. However, it’s important that these differences are presented fairly and truthfully. Often, people fall into the classic trap of equating masculinity with rationality and femininity with stupidity or irrationality, which is an unfair assessment. It’s not hard to see that both genders can act irrationally in different ways.

@OBEler My issue with comments and posts like these is that I’m not entirely sure what’s meant to be said or implied. For example, the initial post clearly nitpicked the worst examples of women in podcasting and science (if you genuinely want to look, you’ll find plenty of quality female podcasts and scientists). So, I’m not sure what the original intent was here. Are we implying that women are incapable of intelligent pursuits? A similar issue arises with the claim that women are dramatic. It was debunked by showing how both men and women can be equally dramatic in their own ways above. Was the original intent to say that women are too emotional or dramatic to think rationally? If so, has the opinion changed now? I’d like to understand the subconscious and background implications being placed on both genders from you here.

@OBEler Woman! So, that should hopefully fully fulfill the request above!

@OBEler Here you go!

The issue is that men often use the argument "women are more dramatic" to invalidate women and claim that men are more rational, less emotional, and more in control of their emotional responses. However, evidence absolutely does not support this. Both genders can be just as dramatic, irrational, and led by their egos and emotions in their own way. Hope the expanded perspective helps with that! I don’t think that definition is true colloquially either. We often call people dramatic when they’re overreacting, acting like drama queens. Plus, the male examples of "dramatic" above aren’t 'sad.' Most are emotionally charged, brutal, damaging, harmful, or driven by a need for attention and validation.

You don’t throw things out of the window to let people know how you feel. Instead, you pick up an AK-47 and commit a school shooting, murdering countless innocent lives to express your emotions of loneliness and anger. You don’t throw things out of the window to get attention; instead, you wait for your partner to come home and beat them up after getting drunk on alcohol to show your displeasure with their behavior and overall relationship. You don’t throw things out of the window to let people know how you feel. Instead, you bottle it up and rage in silence until you snap, taking it out on a random person during a street fight. You don’t throw things out of the window to let people know how you feel. You find a random scared girl, rape her, stalk her, just because she didn’t respond to your Snapchat, left you on read, or ignored your advances. All pretty drama-llama too, haha. Men are extremely drama-prone, too. At its core, drama is about overreacting to emotions and displaying them for others. These extreme examples are both damaging and dramatic, fitting the definition of drama itself. What does drama mean to you? Try to define drama without associating it with feminine connotations. Drama is not just when you scream in high-pitched voices and cry like a woman. It’s the same as if I defined beauty as: when you are captivating like a woman. That’s a stupid definition. Men can also be beautiful. Beauty extends beyond gender, and so does drama. So, what is drama? Also, what does this sentence even mean?

@Schizophonia This sounds so interesting! Do you know why? Are you essentially saying that the weaker or smaller you feel, the more you want feminine girls (girls who are also weaker, smaller, cuter, passive, and innocent)? What does "being empty" mean here? I like your reflectiveness and honesty.

I don't knooooow... War, weapons, shootings, violence, street and bar fights, rape, murder, and domestic abuse are quite dramatic...

Come on, haha, this is silly! I could also nitpick things like this. Look, guys! All men talk about is getting women and being insecure. This is what your average male podcast is like: Compare this to your average female podcast, miles apart: https://www.youtube.com/@melrobbins/videos https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFGVw1aK9Hb4hOvUjoEhHBIEG-kRTtDMy Jokes aside, this guy is really helpful if you want to see the dumbness on both gender sides of the "podcast" debate. https://www.youtube.com/@TheGingerKB/videos I’m genuinely telling you from the bottom of my heart, go out of your way to see the stupidity on both sides of the spectrum. This bias won’t serve you well. You seem intelligent, so there’s no need to fall into these ideological narratives. Look around, and you’ll see how easily both men and women fall victim to ego, cringeworthy beliefs, and ridiculous statements. But on the other hand, you’ll also find incredibly intelligent perspectives on both sides. Pushing these narratives will only discourage smart women from sharing their talents and opinions, which we desperately need. At the same time, it could potentially encourage deluded, ignorant, self-centered men to pick up podcast mics and spread whatever nonsense they have. We need to encourage intelligence, no matter which gender it comes from. Anything that minimizes or represses it is harmful in the long run. Ideologies like yours do exactly that, whether you're consciously or unconsciously aware of it.

Sorry for the late reply! Gocha. Apologies for bringing it up then, but I’m really pleased to hear that's been changed! I definitely don’t want to claim any absolute statements when it comes to solipsism, but I had psychedelic experiences that have tilted my perspective. What I’ve noticed is that simply using psychedelics doesn’t automatically lead to more insight. However, the more deconstruction I engage in, the more it guides my experiences in a helpful direction. These forum debates really help me in my process of deconstruction, I noticed! It can sometimes be tricky contemplating alone, as I don't have a clear sense of what is possible. For example, I know for a fact that I wouldn’t be able to contemplate a lot of Actualized.org topics without psychedelics or Leo’s videos as input. To be honest, even AI contemplation can be limiting, as it tends to become overly agreeable with your views once it senses the direction you're leaning toward. Though there are ways to prevent this, actual proper forum discussions have been really valuable for me in this regard. I tend to lean on classical "tautological-like" logic, since it seems like the one thing God "follows," if you will. It’s simply the logic of Is-ness and I am-ness, which are tied to definitions and existence itself. For example, if I accept solipsism as true, the definition of solipsism inherently involves “oneness”; there’s only one thing, one substrate, or one "material" that constructs this reality. For now, I hold this belief, but I remain open to changing my view. My issue, though, is that if solipsism is true, then when Leo talks about the infinity of gods, each "separate" from one another, it doesn’t logically hold up. As I mentioned earlier, there seems to be an implied difference in "substrate" and "material," but what defines or divides them? What's the "boundary" between these Absolutes? When does Absolute God 1 begin, and Absolute God 2 start? If we say "God," then that brings up the issue again: it’s God dividing God into more gods, which points to Solipism and negates "Infinity of Gods". But if all Leo means is that God can “delude” Himself into a multitude of infinites within Himself as part of a dream to create connection and love, I fully agree. That follows Solipism and his original arguments, too. That makes perfect sense given the nature of Infinity. So, the only issue I have is with the words “separate,” “outside,” and “completely isolated from each other.” If we’re referring to Oneness (God), then how can anything truly be separate from it? Also, I apologize to both you and Leo if I came off as combative. This forum is a space for me to expand my understanding. If I give arguments, it’s because I’m trying to learn through contemplation and future psychedelic experiences, so I enjoy it. But if an argument doesn’t add up, I’ll continue to call it out until I’m provided with an alternative that feels more cohesive. I think my criticism stemmed from the fact that, at the start of the forum, there were some bold statements made regarding solipsism, especially from Leo. But when I probed deeper with further argumentation, the responses seemed more uncertain, with statements like, "Well, my views always change, I’m uncertain. It's open to anything." My only criticism was that if someone is uncertain about the subject, it might be better to admit that upfront in the post. Otherwise, it can come across in a way that might be confusing. Nonetheless, I’m glad things have been clarified now! As for my own experience, logically, I’m much further along in the concept of "You created your own reality" and non-materialism. However, my body and brain haven’t fully adapted to this understanding. Even though I have alternative experiences and views conceptually, I’m still in the process of embodying them. That’s why I enjoy discussing and debating here; it helps me come closer to fully embodying these ideas. I also enjoy very much hearing insights that oppose my views, since that’s usually when I make the greatest leaps in my understanding. I welcome all of them. However, I would prefer more constructive replies rather than just "It is true!"... followed by questioning it... "Oh, by the way, I said my opinions can change! " Hope that clears things up! 😊

@OBEler Exactly! Of course, I'll continue my own psychedelic, spiritual, and god exploration, etc., and verify things on my own. But if there are people here confidently claiming they’ve discovered something truthful or alternative, it’s worthwhile to question and probe their logic. The idea of multiple infinite gods doesn’t really make sense if you’re claiming there's something 'outside' of God, like a different 'reality or substrate.' However, if what’s being claimed is that within infinity there are multiple absolutes, infinities, and variations, then of course, that makes sense logically, given what infinity is.

@Leo Gura I don’t necessarily disagree, but I do feel that what we’re aiming for here is to understand the 'truth.' There are definitely things that are more or less "true", for example, Christianity vs. atheism, atheism vs. non-duality, etc. Some pointers to reality are clearer or more accurate, purer than others. When someone is giving teachings and making strong, bold statements, it feels a bit like a cop-out to then say, 'Please remain open...' If, from the start, it had been said, 'I am unsure what the answer is or what other possibilities exist; test it for yourself, this is about going on an exploration,' then there would be no issue with that. But this started with very bold, strong statements, hence why I was bringing up contradictions. Leo often says things like, 'No one is awake more than I am. No one on this forum is awake.' These are pretty bold statements that aren’t very open-ended or exploratory 😅 One of the main things that attracts Leo (and many of us) is finding 'the answers.' That’s one of the main things he talks about in his videos: understanding consciousness, revealing life's biggest questions. So, there’s definitely an aspect of seeking answers and truth, or as close to the total answer as possible. Suddenly shifting to, 'Oh, it's about openness and endless exploration,' after making bold statements with clear passion about revealing "the truth" doesn’t quite sit right. Hope that makes sense!

@Leo Gura Thank you! I suppose a little suggestion for the blog or future videos: it would be awesome to get an update on the supplements video from a few years ago that you made! That one was incredibly useful and taught me a lot! Really appreciate it!

@Leo Gura Sneak peek as to which ones?

@Breakingthewall Sure, but I'm still not quite sure what's being said here. The original question or problem was about multiple gods, infinity, and solipsism. By defining God as infinity, you’re essentially saying that all is infinity. So, unless you're claiming there’s something “outside” of this infinity that is putting a limit on it, then nothing novel is being added. God is still infinity, and all is God, Oneness, Solipsism. Yes, it’s infinite in nature and ever-unfolding, but still, nothing exists outside of it, which was my original point. Therefore, you cannot claim there are infinite absolutes "outside" of God, only within or as it, expressing itself infinitely. Hopefully, that makes sense? I am not denying that infinity has infinite unfoldings and expressions, but they are still just that: infinity expressing itself. It’s not necessarily some other substrate or origin.