Emerald

Lots of white people attempt to erase racial identity and try to pretend we're a post-racial society or that we should be. And then they convince themselves it's because they're so above it and enlightened. But it's just another avoidance tactic to avoid shame.

Nope. Time won't heal these wounds. Only awareness, love, understanding, and genuine compassion will.

That's a great point! I'd imagine that it gets very uncomfortable trying to explain to white people and to be met with all the tactics that white people unconsciously use to avoid shame. And because we're often unconsciously projecting our own shame, I'd imagine that that projection is often absorbed by those we project it upon. Also, thank you for the book recommendations. I'll keep those in mind for future reading.

No. We're not in the clear because the shame has yet to be faced and the collective racial trauma wounds have yet to be healed. If we don't face these things and resolve them, both the white shame and the racial trauma will continue to be passed down from generation to generation. And it doesn't matter how many generations removed from the original wounding we are. The wounds still fester on. Nobody is off the hook for anything... so don't go into denial and avoidance mode by reframing it as, "Yay! White people ended slavery." It's nothing more than a tactic to avoid the shame.

I did an Ayahuasca ceremony this weekend and had some insights about racism... specifically the racism happening in America. One thing I recognized was that underneath all hatred and bitterness (in any situation) is a deep yearning for love, friendship, and oneness. And I could recognize this in the dynamic playing out between all people. And it came up in relation to men and women. But it also came up in relation to people of different races. Then, there was a recognition specifically of American anti-black racism and what causes White Fragility. It has often been called White Guilt, but it is actually White Shame. And these are very different things. It was clear to me that the collective wounding in relation to slavery, Jim Crow, and present intonations of anti-black America racism have yet to be resolved on a collective level. So, there is a big festering karmic wound on the collective human spirit which has yet to be addressed in a meaningful way in relation to past and present racial traumas. And it doesn't matter how much time goes by, as time will not be the thing that heals this wound... awareness and genuine love will be. And at the crux of this lack of resolution is White Shame. To understand this, the distinction between guilt and shame must be understood. Guilt is about doing something wrong and feeling bad about it. Shame is about believing "I'm bad." During the ceremony, there was a recognition that white people as a collective have internalized the shame of all the human rights violations of the colonizers of the past and subconsciously believe "I am bad" because they resemble the oppressor (and often act as oppressor, even if unintentionally). But people in general will protect their sense of goodness at all costs. It is the nature of the ego to assert, "I am good." So, shame that asserts "I am bad" and the ego that asserts "I am good" are at odds with one another. And white people who are dealing with White Shame (which is most white people), will jump through so many hoops to avoid their shame and maintain their identity of goodness because deep down they feel like they're bad and they are trying to hide their feelings of badness from themselves. And this is why, when people of color bring up racism around white people, white people react really intensely and defensively with White Fragility. And that's because they're no longer talking to the person of color. They are projecting their own White Shame and buried sense of badness, unworthiness, and shame onto them. And then, people of color become a scapegoat and a reminder to white people of their own internal sense of their own perceived sense of badness. And that happens even when the person of color is being super accommodating (beyond what should ever be expected of anyone) to the white person's fragility. And it all comes down to white people having a deep unresolved and unconscious collective sense of shame. So anything race-related can be a trigger for that feeling of shame, and so many white people seek to make everything racially neutral and to minimize the extent of the damage done in slavery, Jim Crow, and beyond. But it's really important for white people to face with this feeling of shame because white people won't be able to allow the wounds of the past and present racism to be healed otherwise. Time won't heal these wounds. Only a genuine acknowledgement of the scope of the pain will. And if it isn't resolved in this generation, it will keep passing itself down to the next generation and the next generation and so on. And white people will keep inheriting the sense of shame and people of color will keep inheriting the racial traumas that haven't been resolved because of the unwillingness to look at that shame.

Just let yourself fall in love. Don't be so afraid of losing her that you're unable to relax and surrender to the process. Detach yourself from all outcomes, but immerse yourself in the feelings and let them happen.

Usually, the desperation played out in the dating scene (whether from men or from women) comes from earlier traumas and just plays itself out in the sexual arena and/or in the relationship arena. So, my take on desperate men is that the desperation doesn't usually begin with their relationship to dating/sex/women; it comes from what happened the them in childhood... and what was taught to them about relationships with women from family, friends, society, and media becomes the lens through which that childhood trauma find expression.

If we really understand how polarity works and what masculinity and femininity really are, we will recognize immediately that we're the most masculine oriented than we've ever been as a species. And that includes in times and societies where men were totally dominant and women totally subservient. Even then, they were less masculine oriented than our society is despite our progress with gender equality. This is because when we were in older social orders prior to industrialization, it was man against nature. We had to polarize ourselves into the masculine (ideas, invention, and manipulating nature for human gain) in order to counterbalance the powerful feminine energy of Mother Nature... so that we didn't get swallowed up by it. And this patriarchal adaptation worked for a long time to keep us surviving, though a side effect of that adaptation is that it worked massively to the benefit of men and the suppression of women. But now, the battle of man against nature has reached a point of diminishing returns. Now, nature is losing. And now, patriarchal/masculine-oriented social orders are maladaptive for this very reason. This is why you see a lot of people nowadays focusing towards the feminine. But it's not nearly far enough if we want to bring things into balance and integration. Masculine orientation has ruled for so many thousands of years. And now that femininity takes up just an inch more space for the past few years, you say that it's swinging too far in the opposite direction. And that just fails to see the bigger picture of what's happening in terms of masculine/feminine polarity. I know it's a change and that masculine orientation is the water and we are fish. But to say that we've polarized too much into the feminine is just not true. If we want to survive as a species for very much longer, we'll have to deliberately integrate the feminine as a species. And that comes difficult because we're not used to it.

Thank you

I can't give you an observable view of the Yin/Yang phenomenon any more than I can give you an observable view of ego transcendence. These are laden within the subjective experience, and I couldn't transmit them to you even if my life depended on it. Imagine that we are both blind people and most everyone on Earth is also blind. But I had several experiences where my vision came back online and I could see for a short period of time. And then, with the memory of that experience, I told you about color and attempted to describe it to you. And then you said, "Please provide me with an observable view of color." and to prove my claim and provide evidence. But the only way for you to actually get evidence is for you to have a similar experience of vision in your direct experience. There is nothing that I could show you, if you don't already see it, that would persuade you to the existence of color. And the only value my persuasion has is to open you up to the possibility of being receptive to color in the future. Now, of course I know exactly 0% about anything. I don't even know that I'm typing in this conversation for sure. Maybe the universe just began a split second ago and me writing this message is just a false memory. So, I know 0% just like every other person on the planet right now. But in so far as I can be sure of anything and can trust my direct experience and my memories of my direct experience, I'm 100% sure that they're real. You can experience them phenomenologically in your subjective experience. Note: I will come back and answer your other questions in a bit.

It's not just biology. It's in all things... living and non-living. It's a cosmic principle that informs but supersedes human gender and sexuality. You can experience it directly. No dogma. Just experience. Also, it's depicted by humans in an anthropomorphized way. But that's because we need a way to depict it in symbolic language. The energies are subtle and defy categorization. But if we talk about them symbolically, we can call them masculine/feminine or depict them as man/woman or God/Goddess. So, there is the raw, observable phenomenon. Then, there are the symbolic understandings that human beings use to understand them. One is observable... the other is either archetypal and/or cultural depiction of what that core experience is.

Actually, Yin and Yang is at least phenomenologically real as it's an observable phenomenon. You can notice them in a state of sensitivity to them. I have experienced these qualities before. They interplay in all living and non-living systems. And it isn't based upon social constructs... though many social constructs are derived from them.

Repression of the feminine side doesn't make a man more masculine. And integration of the masculine side isn't precluded by integrating the feminine side. To be masculine doesn't entail being free from the feminine side. Masculinity and femininity are inborn qualities. You can't change them. You can either do the healthy thing and own them or repress them and suffer the consequences. And men who try to try to repress their feminine side usually just end up expressing tons of shadow feminine qualities like spitefulness, pettiness, and insecurity. And this is because they haven't integrated their feminine side, so it comes out in more denigrated forms. When a man has integrated his feminine side, it comes out in the form of deeper social acuity, emotional intelligence, and a deeper connection to his inner compass and personal sovereignty. Also, a great number of masculine qualities cannot be integrated without integrating the feminine side. For example, personal sovereignty and the ability to have firm boundaries and stand up for one's self can only be integrated if the person has developed the capacity for emotional sensitivity.

You didn't read what I actually wrote. Looks aren't the primary criteria like you claimed. It's just one criterion out of many. And there's a lot of flexibility that men have in the attractiveness department that women don't. Also, minimum looks criteria will change from woman to woman. A woman who's a 3 will probably be happy to date a 1 or 2. A woman who's a 5 will probably be okay with dating a 3 or 4. A woman who's a 10 will probably be okay with dating 7 or 8. There's a bar there. But as long as you're not a 4 or 5 looking for a 10, then you probably won't have any issues.

That’s not true. If a guy is really “ugly”, he’s going to hit a barrier if he’s trying to attract a woman who’s more than a couple point ahead of him in physical attractiveness. but you could replace the word “ugly” with “average” and that would be mostly correct.

Women aren’t primarily attracted to looks. And that wasn’t even what she said. Women are attracted to the whole package. But looks can be a dealbreaker. Men can up their attractiveness by two points by developing his personality... and down their attractiveness by two points if he has an underdeveloped personality. But a female 10 probably isn’t going to go for a male 2. But she might go for a 7 or 8. A female 5 probably isn’t going to go for a male 1. But she might go for a 3 or 4. So, men do have a lot more control over how attractive they are compared to women. That said, it isn’t true that looks are irrelevant to women’s choice in partner. Most women will seek their looks-match.

There is a bar there too. I'm probably about a 6 in the looks department. And my subconscious would auto-filter a guy who's 4 and under. And that's true even if he had the best personality and the most charisma. When attractions have happened to me in the past, it's almost always to men who are about my looks-match. And it's never towards men that are visibly unattractive to me upon first meeting. I know right away who I'll never be attracted to in the same way that you know it about the woman you turned down. When I do end up with an attraction, it's usually towards men who I see as average or slightly above average upon first meeting where the feelings for them end up growing over time. Now, it's true that looks isn't the number one factor that attracts me. That is a genuine divergence between female sexuality and male sexuality. Looks is one factor among many that make up the whole of a person. So, I'm always attracted to a man as more than the sum of his parts. If a man is a 10 in the looks department, chances are he won't do very much for me because my attractions are so pointed and particular towards one guy that I've been struck by the Cupid's Arrow for. But if you put a 10 next to a 5, the chances are far greater that I will become attracted to the 5. Though the odds are still slim for me to develop an attraction towards either because Cupid's Arrows don't strike often. But I'm also very aware that men who are my looks-match or slightly below will appreciate my looks more, and that would make me feel attractive and desirable. Whereas, if I were out on a date with Brad Pitt or Timothy Chalamet or something, I'd be super turned off because they're significantly more attractive than me and wouldn't see me as a catch. But it would just be untrue to say that women don't have a looks filter. It's there. It just doesn't get so much focus. Also, don't feel bad about rejecting people you're not attracted to. No one's entitled to your sexual interest. You may not be used to rejecting women because men do most of the approaching. But if you were a woman, you'd have to reject people all the time based on many reasons... looks being one of them. It's all just part of it.

Yeah, I just sense a lot of Shadow motivations behind her desire to cape for men and why it takes that particular tone. Now, there isn't anything wrong with her pointing out the problems with the way men are oriented to. There are some real issues there. But because she frames it in a way that's anti-woman/anti-feminist, it implies that root cause of the issue is women... instead of what the actual root cause is which is based in patriarchal notion of what it means to be a man.

I would be very careful about being involved with her. You can end up really traumatized if she’s having these kind of issues. It seems like it’s tugging on a need/desire in you to be a savior. But these relationships can end up very stressful because you may start putting yourself in a position where you’re the glue that has to keep her together. If you really want to help her, be a supportive friend. But getting involved with her could really put you through the ringer. You especially don’t need this at such a young age.

My parents were considering naming me Melvina before they decided to name me Emerald... I’m totally glad they didn’t.

No worries ?

Well, that’s not an accurate representation of what Patriarchy is. Patriarchy is an agrarian adaptation, largely based in the establishment of the concept of land ownership, paternity, and property rights being passed down the paternal line and the need to control/oppress women and female sexuality to ensure paternity and to have lots of children to be used as soldiers to fend off warring civilizations... or to bear future mothers who will bear and raise more sons to become soldiers to protect the people and further avoid having the land seized and the people killed by warring civilizations. But that’s a whole other can of worms with a lot of perspectives to dig into. But that’s the reason for the adaptation of patriarchy... which lead symptomatically to an overall suppression of the feminine in both men and women... and an oppression of women’s sovereignty. But you are correct that men care a lot about what women think of them. Part of that is natural, but part of that is also based in Anima disintegration. I made a video on the topic...

What I’m saying is that men have high expectations projected upon them... which benefits them in terms of societal power structures but disadvantages them in terms of their inner life. It’s not meant to invalidate the issues men are facing. It’s meant to hint at why men’s issues tend to be overlooked. People are very focused towards women’s barriers to power as power is viewed as masculine and therefore important. People are not focused towards men’s barriers to emotional vulnerability because emotions are viewed as feminine and therefore trite. There is an assumption that men neither need nor want emotional vulnerability because it is viewed as feminine. And the expectation that men dispossess themselves with everything associated with femininity. This is why lots of men bottle up and repress their feelings as there is an expectation to be strong and powerful all the time. So, no, not an invalidation at all.

I just went through and watched some more of her videos and she’s mostly pretty even handed in most videos I’ve seen. These are patterns that can be noticed in society. That said, I have seen other clips prior where she’s really anti-woman in her perspective and you can notice the pandering much stronger. But no, being concerned about men’s issues is not misogynistic as long as it’s not done for the sake of invalidating women’s issues.