Emerald

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.

@SFRL Your profile picture makes so much sense.

I think you're making the mistake of assuming dogma and harsh reaction is alway Red or Blue. But all levels of spiral dynamics are dogmatic about something, up until stage Yellow. Purple is dogmatic about magical thinking. Red is dogmatic in the sense that the individual believes themselves to be the center of the universe. Blue is dogmatic about maintaining traditions and social institutions. Orange is dogmatic about capitalism and the importance of an individual's worth being based upon merit. And Green is dogmatic about fairness and equality. And at each of these stages there are varying levels of vitriol and violence that individuals at that level will be willing to expend to ensure that the dogma of the stage is upheld. So, excessive Reds will kill someone who challenges their notion of dominance and being the center of the universe. Excessive Blues will go to war to enforce, spread, and defend the social institutions. Excessive Oranges will sacrifice civility and fairness to raise to the top of the hierarchy. And excessive Greens will call out and shame anyone who stands in the way of fairness and equality. But at its core, ideas in Green like Feminism are inherently more conscious dogmas than the dogmas that came before it. And you can see that with each stage, that the values become more and more conscious.

I would say that this series is very Yellowish-Green in its execution, but with Green goals.

Any movement that disrupts the status quo in any meaningful way will rustle a lot of people's Jimmies. Trust me, as much resistance as there is toward Third Wave Feminism in the current era, that level of resistance probably can't even hold a candle to the resistance to First and Second Wave Feminism. So, every effective movement always has a huge hater-base. People just don't like change, and they get scared. So, it doesn't actually matter what you call it. The people who are against it now because it's called Feminism would be against it if it were called Equitism too. This is because if Equitism were truly about acheiving equity in an effective way and not just about pretending that we've already achieved equity, women's issues would still be focused upon disproportionately because women are disproportionately negatively affected by the dis-integration of the Divine Feminine. So, those that think in terms of Feminism focusing on women's issues unfairly, would still perceive this disproportionate attention to women's issues in Equitism as unfair and would be against it. But this common mistake, is just lack of nuance and not thinking systemically about societal issues. But truly, the vast majority of Feminist schools of thought are about achieving equity. Also, notice that it isn't called Womanism for a reason. Men have a feminine side, and so Feminism is for them too. And contemporary Feminists talk a lot about how the expectation of unrealistic hyper-masculinity in men, causes negative effects for the individual man and society at large. They also talk about how this can especially have an impact on gay and bi-sexual men and men who are simply not naturally masculine. So, there is actually a reasonable amount of focus toward male issues, even if it's not focused on to the same degree. So, understand that the intention of Feminism is to achieve equity. It's just that the path to equity is not solely about treating people equally in daily life and pretending like everything is already equal. That's just not an effective solution to our deep systemic problems. It's about actively removing systemic barriers to equity in whichever way is effective, which sometimes takes counterintuitive paths that can be read by less nuanced thinkers as unfair due to unequal focus. And it isn't passive. It's a very active process. And to remove barriers, we have to notice where barriers exist and be able to recognize which barriers are causing the biggest societal issues. Then when issues come into conflict with one another prioritize the bigger issues and not get derailed by smaller ones. And it's not that men are excluded from this. Many issues that uniquely effect men, stem from the issues that Feminists are trying to dismantle. For example, many men are upset that family courts tend to rule in the favor of the women getting custody of children. This is genuinely a huge problem. And I've heard many guys attribute this problem to Feminists, as though it's something that Feminists caused or something that Feminists support. But this problem wasn't caused by Feminists. It's actually a bias that stems from societal ideas which Feminism is diametrically opposed to: taking gender roles as absolutes. So, the same people who believe in their heart of hearts that women are inferior in the workplace, are the same ones who believe that men are inferior care-takers for children and are the expendable parent. Feminists tend to be VERY against these gender stereotypes. So, the men who blame Feminists for this issue often don't realize that they're fighting against an ally. Then, a sizable minority of those same men who lament the unfairness of family courts, inexplicably turn around and support beliefs in rigid gender roles, which then ends up percolating through the entire society. And then, once that idea percolates into society as a basic truth about humanity and is thoroughly incepted into the minds of the lawmakers and family court judges, it results in the disproportionate granting of custody rights to mothers over fathers. So, I see this situation as being like a dog chasing its own tail and trying to bite it, then getting angry at at someone else when it gets bitten. It's a very bitter irony. There is another version of the picture you posted of the people standing on boxes. In the picture, it's the same people with the same differences but none of them are on boxes. But they can all see perfectly. It's because they've gotten rid of the systemic barrier that was causing the inequality in the first place because the fence is gone from the picture. Edit: Also, you totally should let people know that you're a woman. I already knew. But many of the guys on here are pretty receptive. I know that implicit biases exist all the same though. And it is frustrating being subconsciously written off by many people in life: male and female. But there's no stakes on here. So, my policy is to always just be as honest and thorough as I can be without hedging myself, and I've seldom had the issue of being purposefully disrespected or noticably written off based on my sex.

Feminism strikes more at the core of the movement than the word "Equitism". As much as Feminism is about gender equality, the deeper implications of the word are that it's meant to aide in the re-integration of the Divine Feminine. So, really it's a movement geared toward undoing the Feminine repression that has fragmented human society for thousands of years. So, esoterically speaking, Feminism is an incredibly appropriate word for its end-game.

Basically, what you're afraid of is suffering eternally. And because you don't know what the afterlife holds, you fear that it will be Hell and you want to know how to avoid it. I used to freak out a lot about the after life before I had my ego transcendence experiences. When I had them, I realized that I was in integral part of God and always had been and always would be. And as such, I was unshakably valid. And suffering and fears about what would happen to me after death completely vanished, still never again to return. It's one of the main things that has stuck with me pretty well from the experiences. So, I realized that all of reality was Heaven and always would be even if outward appearances deceived. So, I can't tell you that there's not some other dimension or an infinite amount of other dimensions called "Hell". If reality is truly infinite it makes sense that everything exists. But I can tell you that everything is always going to be okay, and that suffering will always be an illusion and that God will always be there and you'll always be inextricable from God when all is said an done.

Both men and women's issues are important. I agree with that. But some issues in the world hold more weight, and it's wise that they are prioritized over others especially if two unequally weighted issues come into conflict with one another. So, if two issues run at cross purposes to one another in some way, the bigger issue should get priority and more focus. For example, the issue we were talking about is that many guys are worried about the "metoo" movement because they're afraid of being seen in a particular light or being accused, which is NOT a non-issue. It can certainly be something difficult to navigate for an individual person. It's just that it's a small issue in comparison to a bigger problem. So, the issue of male discomfort at these stories coming to light shouldn't get equal priority to the bigger issue of the systemic problems that create so many "metoo" stories in the first place, and those stories being brought to the light of consciousness. But it's what I see so often, that so many people think those issue are equally worth talking about. And the same people get so triggered and identified with the issues at hand that they want to use their own self-focused concerns to steer the conversation away from the bigger issue, and many use their part of the dialogue to invalidate and to point out that the solution is being done incorrectly or in a way that creates too many discomforts. To focus on both equally is to be slanted in the favor of the status quo as it is to say that both issues are of the same level of importance and do the same level of damage. And it's so often that so many people like to shift the focus from the real victims, to themselves and their discomfort with the social changes going on. And they pick that as their hill to die on. Or they get blinded by ideas of absolute equality and pick that as their hill to die on. And it's not just you. I see it a lot. Ironically, the dogma of absolute equality is actually a blind-spot created by liberal-minded people, who want to weigh all concerns as being equal and all opinions as equal. But this is not true of how reality works. It's the illusion of "wokeness." The limitations of this absolute equality dogma has been a huge awakening for those on the left in recent years.

Unfortunately, there's bound to be a lot of 'burn the heretic' kind of people that are in Green. The world changes through both subtle ideas percolating into society as well as ideas being forcefully shoved down people's throats. So, human evolution is volatile like that. But my recommendation for this is to just go with the flow if you think that the people are causing good changes in general. Try to prioritize positive social change over personal discomforts, unless a person's being totally unreasonable. Then, be nuanced about why you think they're unreasonable, and that it has more to do with being unreasonable as an individual, than with disagreeing with them or thinking that their vision for the future is bad. This can be difficult. But basically just practice some social acuity for whichever group you're in. If a group will be offended by your way of sitting (which is a bit nit-picky, even if it has merit as an outgrowth of problematic social structures) just be mindful of adapting yourself to that particular group. Basically, prioritize, pick your battles, and don't choose the smallest hills as the ones to die upon. But also, I don't recommend being around a lot of "gotcha!" kind of people either. I can't be myself around dogmatic people at all. So, I tend to avoid people who will moralize and can't have an open conversation. Also, many people try to show off their "woke-ness" and criticize others for not being as "woke" as them, calling them on every issue even if the person is making genuine attempts at understanding their point of view. But there are plenty of deeper thinking Greens who aren't like this. And even if they aren't open minded to certain ideas, they will have a reason behind it that makes sense within the social structure. Now, when I read this, I'm wondering if your aunt really felt uncomfortable because of your posture. Is she typically very nit-picky about social justice issues and stuff? I say this because usually it's younger people who tend to get hyper focused on small things like that. But I guess if you were sharing a bench and taking up all the room, she might have been upset at that. But that picture isn't even a picture of man-spreading. In fact, if I see a man sit like that, I tend to think of it as the male version of female cross legged position. And I've never related that position to being masculine or dominant at all. It's basically men getting away with the comforts of the cross legged position while not seeming too feminine or squishing "themselves". But I would just make sure that you read the situation right and that it isn't just projection. Sometimes, I can feel uncomfortable in situations where I belong to the privileged class, like sometimes when I'm around people of color that I don't know. So, I get like hyper-aware of how I'm behaving and nervous that they're interpreting my completely neutral behavior as racist. Then I try to hide my discomfort, which makes me awkward. And then I'm like, "I'm acting awkward, I hope it's not because they think I'm racist. I don't want them to think I'm a bad person." And it just becomes like this psychological snowball effect of projection and discomfort giving way to more projection and discomfort that's difficult to remove myself from. But this is totally my own projection onto them. They're probably just existing and thinking about totally other things and not even paying attention to me... then I just start acting like a spaz. Basically, it is my own self-judgment projected onto other people in the form of imagining their thoughts about my being a crappy person, which is what I fear people perceive me as because I identify strongly with being a good person. Basically, the human personality (and all other systems) have to have Yin (femininity) and Yang (masculinity) to exist and function. So, the main way to access them is simply to release resistance to both energies and naturally let them be integrated. So, it isn't so much trying to embody them both. It's just allowing whatever comes up to come up. Well, don't fear matriarchy because it isn't really possible at this point. Society can't ever really work that way. Esoterically speaking, at matriarchy requires Mother Nature to be in charge. So, we're just too evolved as a human society for us to be in a matriarchy. Basically, nomadic times where we moved to adapt to natural cycles as opposed to manipulating nature for agriculture and settled society, was matriarchal. Not in the sense that women ruled, but in the sense that nature ruled. It's humanity's childhood. In fact, patriarchy cam about largely because esoterically-speaking patriarchy is all about invention and dominance over nature. So, up until about the industrial revolution our focus was toward bettering the patriarchal system to give us new innovations and technology to create a protective wedge between us as an under-developed human species and the mightiness of Mother Nature. This is why the feminine has been resisted for so long, because the goal prior to the modern era was to survive and insulate ourselves from Mother Nature though innovation and refinement of civilization. We had a fear of the feminine, that still lingers in the unconscious today because of the link to Mother Nature's most destructive forces. But at the end of the Blue stage, when Orange was first dawning in the form of the industrial revolution, we finally got to be very effective at manipulating and insulating ourselves from the forces of nature. Even our instincts were largely stifled under so many layers of empty civility. And human society was becoming really effective at insulating ourselves from nature and dominating it. So, Alan Watts once said, "The tree creates apples, and the Earth creates people." (paraphrased). So, we as humans are an outgrowth of the Earth. So, because we reached a point where we had become super effective with patriarchy and planetary dominance, the Earth as a system (which we have a deep connection with) triggered a change in human beings and a change in social structure began. And that's why I believe Feminism didn't come up until about 100-120 years ago. That's when patriarchy started to reach a critical point, where its growth and development started to go from benign to cancerous. It's probably why the Amish stopped when they did. But one of the ways I think it will become more possible to integrate the Divine Feminine back into society, is changing more surface level power structures. So, when a woman goes into labor, the cervix has to dilate and many structure near the birth canal have to change position to allow room for the baby to be born. So, I see the shifting of societal taboos as being a way to prime society in a similar way, so we can collectively "give birth" to the feminine. I'm not really doing any particular practices to embody these energies. Sometimes just knowing that something is masculine or feminine can be a barrier in and of itself, because the mind gets in the way. The main thing I've done is to be aware of things that are generally filed into the masculine principle and feminine principle across cultures, and observe which ones I like and which ones I don't. Usually the feminine things I have a resistance too by nature of my conditionings. So, it's really a matter of understanding that I do have biases and trying to understand them at a deep level, and understanding that femininity is more than society thinks it is. But the majority of these understandings came from a time period when I was reading about the topic a whole bunch. It helped me empty my cup of many feminine resistances. But whenever I'm looking at something, I can notice it in a symbolic way and a non-symbolic way. So, I can notice how my mind tries to super-impose symbols over reality, and how that insulates me from being. So, it's a way to switch my focus from an esoterically masculine perception of the world which is based around utility to an esoterically feminine perception of the world which is based upon being. But I'm not sure about turquoise either.

That could be. I'm curious to see what Leo says about Turquoise, because I've never really gotten a clear idea of how it works.

I recommend ALL the books by Jean Benedict Raffa. She has three of them and one in the works. She's my favorite. I also recommend "The Heroine's Journey" by Maureen Murdoch, "The Pregnant Darkness" by Monika Wikman, "Androgyny" by June Singer, and "Goddesses in Every Woman" by Jean Shinoda Bolen. I also recommend perusing the work of Carl Jung, whose theories form a large part of the basis of the ideas these books were written from. You might also try reading work from Merlin Stone, Marian Woodman, Robert Stanford, and others like that. Jean Raffa always has really good bibliographies of suggested literature in the backs of her books.

At stage Orange, for men, female sexuality is seen as commodity that women are the gatekeepers of. It is seen as a hot 'item' to enhance a man's status through displays of value to one's self and others through female attention. So, attention from women, having money, having success/status, perhaps wearing brands, and being in the in-crowd all kind of meld together as Orange sexuality. So, sex is quite shallow and transactional at this stage. Men seek to have their power (and thus status) reflected back to them through the confirmation and 'earning' of female attention and approval. Women may also seek to have their desirability (and thus value) reflected back to them through male attention as well. So, at Orange, no one's really even having sex for pleasure. They're having sex for status and a confirmation of their own value. And Oranges will just assume that this is the way sexuality naturally is. They won't realize that it's an adaptation to the Orange society. They see sex as a value exchange first and foremost. But at Green, there is room for really intimacy and connection. There is also room for focus on pleasure in sex, instead of just status and value confirmation. So, I would say that pick up is definitely Orange, because the pick up community is very geared toward the "sex as transaction" model of human sexuality. But there can still be hook-ups and promiscuity at Green. But is more for fun and mutual exploration, than as a means to add value to one's self in the sexual marketplace. Think "free love."

I guess you can call it Eco-Feminism. But there is a small niche of books written by authors (most of whom were/are 2nd wave Feminists) writing from this perspective through the Jungian lens. My favorite of which is Jean Benedict Raffa. But the idea of the link between nature and the Divine Feminine is known in most spiritual circles. So, any kind of dominance or raping of nature is seen as an outgrowth of a society that has rejected the Divine Feminine. So, this link is well-known in smaller circles but hasn't percolated out into the mainstream very much. But I suspect that it will be the future of where Feminism will go after all the invisible repressive social patterns have been made conscious by the contemporary brand of Feminism. Almost like Feminism and other social movements like Conservationist movements are slowly all boring their way down to the very roots of the issues that they're trying to solve... which is the disintegration and imbalance between Yin and Yang in human societies.

I guess it all depends on his tone and body posture when he says it, and if it feel appropriate for the situation. It's more of having acuity for what's appropriate in a given situation. Also, if it feels contrived in any way or too cinematic or performed; it'll make me feel super awkward. Like, I'll be super aware and go into my head like, 'I think he's in his head right now. Trying to crack the code.' It tells me he's not really being present and isn't really secure in just being a human with me. Plus, it steals me out of the present too. Now, if I'm super attracted to him, I will love everything that he's saying to me, just because it's him that's saying it. The guy could probably say some Pinky from Pinky and the Brain level stuff, and I would find it just charming. But if my attraction is just developing, that might feel like a bit too much pressure. But these words won't make me more attracted unless I'm already very attracted. But I get an intuitive sense for if a man is capable of intimacy. It's about how he carries himself and how he acts and speaks. But it is just a projection at first too. But his affectations will be a pretty good indicator if he feels secure enough in himself to be intimate with someone else. Basically, if a guy seems like he has a chip on his shoulder, it'll clue me into some potential barriers to intimacy. Also, niceness is very non-active. It's just a very normal and general mode of behavior. Kind of like a clerk at a grocery store. They can be nice, but you wouldn't necessarily say that someone with surface level niceness is compassionate or particularly empathetic, emotionally sensitive, or warmhearted. Nice is an easy mask to wear. But the others take some skill, depth, and wisdom. They're more admirable traits. As for believing in the Cupid's Arrow, not literally. But I think the myth comes from the way that an attraction strikes women, and occasionally men. My attractions really have come up due to no logical reason. It's just that I start inexplicably start intensely liking someone and wanting to be around them because it produces the best emotions ever. Like imagine your body got a little hit of ecstasy every time you thought about or interacted with a particular person. And that was the only person who gave you that feeling. No one else pushes the ecstasy button but that person. That's what my attractions have been. And they come along only once in a very great while. But again, you're always kind of playing the lotto to a certain degree if you're trying to get a woman to fall in love with you to that depth. You can try every trick in the book, and if it doesn't happen it just won't. But you can increase your chances by being an awesome person in general and getting rid of deal breakers and being aware of how female attraction works. But the one you want may never be interested. Which is a difficult truth to handle. But someone will be, and they will like you very intensely just because you're you. You won't have to act any which way. But if you're just interested in pick-up or something like that, you don't really need a woman to fall in love with you. There are a ton of women who are just looking for a good time, who aren't interested in (or sometimes not even capable of) deeper attractions. In which case, you can learn some techniques and be relatively successful for one-night-stands and brief flings. But if you're looking for intimacy and a real relationship with another human being, it's important to understand what makes them tick. It's also helpful to know how random it is. A lot of guys will feel like they messed something up or that something is wrong with them if a girl doesn't have an attraction to them. Guys tend to be attracted to lots of women based on looks mostly, so they might assume women are also attracted to lots of men and that the lame men get put into the friend zone. But it doesn't work that way. Everyone in the world (except maybe Edward Norton... just sayin') starts in the friend zone. But usually only one makes it out. Maybe a few, if a woman isn't quite as pointed with her attractions as I am. But it's a really intuitive process and the choice happens on a subconscious level.