Emerald

Men who are more emotionally attuned and sensitive are able to embody higher expressions of their Masculine side and come across as more stoic and Masculine than men who are disconnected from their emotions. Without that emotional attuenment and sensitivity a guy comes across as nerdy and as brittle as glass, like he's holding back and bitter and could easily break. Men who try to eradicate the Feminine from themselves come across in this very nerdy fragile kind of way as the Feminine is repressed and comes through in its lower forms. But the more emotionally attuned and sensitive a man is, the more give and resiliency his personality has and he comes across as more embodied and more socially attuned (while embodiment, social attunement, and emotional sensitivity are positive Feminine principled qualities). That's the interesting thing... if a man wants to enhance his Masculine, he should integrate the Feminine. If a woman wants to enhance her Feminine, she should integrate the Masculine. A man without the Feminine is a brain in a brittle class jar... a woman without the Masculine is a lazy blob on the ground.

Believe it or not, when I was a teenager and up until my mid-twenties, I used to be very jealous of men having added attraction value for the content of their character and achievements over me just being appreciated for surface level qualities that have nothing to do with the content of my character and achievements. I really had a romanticized notion of becoming more successful as a man and to have my successes be the measure of my attractiveness... and the idea of having all of this room to grow and develop my attractiveness. And that my efforts and goals would make me more attractive generally toward the opposite sex. Like I was so jealous of guys for having such a range of attractiveness that can either grow or shrink based not the content of their character and his personality qualities. And I thought about how cool it would be to be a man and to engage in personal development and learn to attract women and to be valued in the personality-centric way that I have valued the men I've been interested in. And I felt doomed to only be appreciated for shallow appearance-based qualities that would lose sexual marketplace value and general societal value (plus I feared existential value) with age with nothing that I could do about it... and I would never be loved or valued as a personality. So, men actually have a lot of leverage points for developing attractiveness that women don't have... and are less prone to being objectified. And there's just more power in their own hands to increase their levels of attraction. And I felt like, "Why do men get to be valued for their personality, while women don't?"... when the reality is that men and women get to be valued for their personality. And the personality can be useful in attracting the very niche audience of right people. It's just that personality development will make a man have mass appeal attraction-wise where lots of women will flock to a well-developed man... And personality development will enrich the woman's life and will be appreciated by the right people but will not lead through to her having mass sexual appeal as she cannot truly change her level of mass sexual appeal because it's all physical and set in stone. In fact, having a more well-defined personality will decrease a woman's mass appeal. And you'll see this blankness of personality in the pop culture images of women with the most mass sexual appeal, as they are intentionally left fairly blank personality-wise because it gives men someone blank to serve as their Galatea and project their Feminine side onto... which creates an even stronger level of sexual appeal that's otherwise empty of love and pathos. Luckily a woman doesn't really need mass appeal to attract the right person for her. And having a really well-developed personality, will help her attract fewer people so as to sort who doesn't fit or who just wants to objectify... as a woman doesn't need mass appeal to attract the right friends or lovers. She just needs to love herself and sort accordingly... which is a difficult lesson to learn if you're a woman with shame and insecurities. Now, I'm not jealous anymore because I've interacted with lots of guys and I see that there's also a lot of insecurity to break through and more of difficulty having social acuity. So, I was imagining being a man and growing my level of charisma when I'm already working with a more sensitive and socially attuned palate... where I already have an interest in people (as women generally tend to). And beyond that, I recognize that I never really resonated with that path. I just didn't know what a positive vision for the Feminine path looked like until a handful of years ago. And so, I felt from 16 onwards this sense of my value and lovability decreasing day by day with no way to escape it or control it... and the sense that all of my value will be thrown into the wood chipper by 30. But I resonate more with the lessons of the Feminine path truly... though there's a lot less control and a lot more surrender as you live your life as a wilting flower as the entirety of society tells you that you're only valuable if you have never wilted. And I understand a bit deeper the value of being valued as you are now... though it does come with the side effect of a lot of people objectifying you when you're young and learning to take that more as a cue to repel rather than to try harder to attract. But the real value is learning that you will be loved just for who you are by the right people without needing to maximize your level of physical attractiveness. It's all about sorting the wrong ones and repelling the wrong ones. Learning to surrender and love yourself as you are and sort accordingly is the female power... which makes it necessary for women to live as a wilting flower and embrace the seasons of life to learn these lessons. And you come to embrace the mercy of losing attractiveness and ceasing to be the goose that laid the golden egg... and the rescinding of societal projections that make you suddenly far less visible in the eyes of society as you are no longer the world's Galatea... but you (as you are) are far more visible at the same time, to the right people. Not to mention there is a great mercy to not being of childbearing age for your entire life. So, learning to surrender, sort, and love yourself are the primary ways that women can grow relative to their romantic lives. Learning to attract is the male power and figuring out how to consciously and deliberately grow yourself enough to let your light shine to attract the right one through having a greater abundance of option (via mass appeal) There is a lot of difficulty for men to understand these female struggles though... as a man can envy the ease with which young women get male attention. And he may not think of the attractive young woman beyond that short season of her life because he only sees her as the archetype of blank femaleness.

There's definitely a lot of over-analysis there... which seems like a way for her to avoid opening up and being vulnerable herself. And I sense that she sees her own closed up-ness and unwillingness to be vulnerable projected out onto these guys. She may even find herself attracted to closed up guys... as that can also be a pattern. Basically, the call is coming from within the house. But she doesn't realize it yet. That said, the dynamic of men being disconnected is also a common pattern that can be observed.

First off, if that's her test to probe for that trait, then she shouldn't be surprised when she gets to opposite of what she's looking for. No one feels comfortable opening up and being vulnerable with a person who is asking attack questions. People naturally will sense "This person isn't safe to open up to." And they will put up armor... men and women both will. Like if I asked... “Are you smarter than your coworkers” or “When your ex broke up with you, did you deserve it?” or “So when your mom died, did you feel bad about it?”.. it would be very foolish of me to expect that people would feel comfortable opening up to me. I'd be like a cactus asking, "Why don't any balloons I talk to want a hug?" The cultivation of strength and emotional regulation skills are not in opposition to the development of vulnerability. They go together quite nicely. And you can sense when a man is well-integrated in that way or if he's polarized into one pole or another. But I would venture to guess that some of the men she speaks to would feel a lot more comfortable opening up to a woman (or anyone) who demonstrates that they're going to handle their vulnerabilities with care.

I wouldn't say this is an issue specifically with contemporary men. I actually assume the issue to be much worse in the past and to be moving in the direction of getting better. Now, first off... I think her questions make these men feel uncomfortable because she's asking very sharp and pointy questions. And if you want someone to open up to you, that doesn't indicate that you're a safe person to do that around. In this sense, I suspect some of this is a projection of her own issues opening up that she's seeing reflected back to her in the men. But even with that said, men do often have issues of disconnection from their feelings and an awkwardness around articulating their inner world and vulnerabilities. But women really need that to feel connected to men and to bond and to feel intimacy. But this isn't possible if a man is not integrated with his own Feminine side. So, women are frequently unhappy and alone in their relationships because men are trained to disconnect from these Feminine princpled parts of themselves from a young age... and are shamed for vulnerability and "weakness". And just about every single insult towards men is just another way of saying "You're too Feminine. Stop being Feminine." Yet, vulnerability is necessary for connection. But boys/men are taught, "You have to be strong and stoic all the time or women won't like you. Women will laugh at you if you have no armor on" So, it creates dynamics where a man is disconnected from his feelings and in a comfort zone within a relationship because he is numbed out, and the woman is starved of the deeper connection because he's disconnected and numbed out. But she is not numbed out. She feels the desire to go deeper but comes up against a huge block. And often times this leads to the dissolution of the relationship. Or it could potentially prevent the formation of a relationship in the first place.

Thank you

The issue is that people who have prejudices against gay people, trans people, racial minorities, ethnic minorities, religious minorities, etc. are easily weaponized to divide the working class. And those straight working class white males will easily have their ire turned away from the powerful and towards these scapegoat groups... to divide the working class populace so that there's infighting instead of a united front. So, while you might see a focus towards gay rights or trans rights as being the thing that divides the left and the working class... it is actually the prejudice against gay and trans people (and religious and ethnic minorities) that does that. You can't have transphobia in your working class movement any more than you can have gender equality in your ethnostate. If you want some elements of the far right (like rejection of the focus toward gay and trans people), you take everything that comes with it. So, if you don't want authoritarianism, you have to learn to accept people's differences. And if you reject people differences, the more you usher in Fascism. Gay and trans people exist. It's not an ideology... it's a fact of the world. Just deal with that fact... and don't be the weak link that divides the working classes with foolish prejudices and infighting... as that only plays into the hands of the powerful.

There are different approaches to determine relative and absolute truths of things. Determining relative truth is about accurate thorough observation and insights derived from observation. Like, the Scientific Method is a good example of this. This only works with things that are actually observable. But with absolute truth, we cannot know it as human beings. We can only experience it. And the more valuable thing is to recognize the limits of the mind to peal away beliefs and assumptions from the reality itself. This enables us to subtract the mind's projections from the experience and observation of reality... which allows more room for insight and a clearer perception of reality. "To gain knowledge, add things every day. To gain wisdom, remove things every day." - Lao Tzu

The reason why I come to this forum is to debate and spar because that's what this context is mostly geared towards. So, yes. It helps me sharpen my own sword to push back against misconceptions because I don't have intellectual debates in other contexts. In other contexts, I mostly ask questions and listen. But in this context, I get to spar.

My own

Sharpening the sword

These questions are very useful in the sense that they can show you you're projecting beliefs onto reality that aren't actually reflective of something that exists outside of your own mind. And these questions can illuminate to you the difference between an empirically observed reality and a foundationless belief that only exists in your own mind. But I don't bring up flaws in your logic because the issue that I"m pointing out doesn't have to do with flaws in your logic. The problem happens WAY before logic can even be applied. A person could project a perfectly logical belief onto reality that just isn't reflective of that reality and is based purely in assumption. Logic just mean "premise (therefore) conclusion"... so is "If this thing is true, then it makes good sense that this other thing would be true." And my issue is with your assumption of foundationless premises to be reflective of truth... not with your logic or conclusions that are built upon those premises. If I project onto reality the premise that, "God is made of marshmallows" then it makes good sense to come to the conclusion "People should avoid eating marshmallows to avoid blaspheming." Or even "If the world is flat, then it makes good sense that you could sail off the edge of it." It's a perfectly logical belief as the conclusion makes sense if we assume the premise to be true. The logic is not flawed. The premise is just made up and untrue. So, my issue is that you're assuming premises that you're making up in your own mind to be true and stating them as such as though God told you himself that this is the way that reality operates and the way that God thinks. And my issue is with you assuming your premises to be true when they're just contrivances of your own mind... not that the logic you use is flawed.

There's a lot of assumption in this. You seem to view being trans either purely as a genetic issue or as ideological group think. But you have no solid evidence that either of these interpretations is true or false. It's not like they test trans people for genetic issues to determine if their gender dysphoria is "real" or "fake". Can you not see any other possibilities beyond those two options? Here's a thought-provoking video by Contrapoints about this very topic where she plays a "trans-trender" and another more conservative trans person who sees it only as a genetic disorder who judges the "trans-trender"....

It doesn't work the same way in the inverse. If I say "God thinks we should all paint ourselves blue and dance around on Fridays. And then people ask "Is that God who thinks that? Or is that just you?" Then I answer, "Who said I'm wrong? God? Or your own mind?" I hope that makes it clear that it doesn't lend any credence at all to my own idea that God wants us to paint ourselves blue and dance around on Fridays. The burden of proof that God thinks that is on you. And if you're honest with yourself, you'll see that your notion that God allows everything to change in appearance but not in terms of other things is just a notion you made up in your own mind... no better or more rooted in the truth of what God thinks than the "paint yourself blue on Fridays" ideas.