Emerald

Isn't findom where you literally just give the women money, and that's it. They don't even do anything other than take money? No sex. No talking. No interaction of any kind past just giving money to them. Is that right? I had heard about it but didn't even think it was a real thing. So, what is it that you get out of this arrangement? It must give you some sense of release, perhaps like self-harm... but financial self-harm. Bottom line, you should keep your money as you're paying money just to be financially harmed. And you're using this to reflect the wounds and feelings of powerlessness that you feel and attribute to women. You should look into the topic of Anima possession, as this can cause these very types of behaviors. A lot of guys into Red Pill and especially Incels deal with Anima possession internally, and it causes all these distortions in how they view women and it makes them feel powerless. Those in MGTOW and MRA types cope with Anima possession by trying to feel a false sense of empowerment through masculinity. Those who are Incels, go the opposite direction and become submissive and self-flaggelating, preferring to tongue their own wounds and avoid taking personal agency. So, the former has a coping mechanism that's primarily destructive to others. And the latter has a coping mechanism, that's primarily destructive to the self. But both are self-destructive and destructive to others as they're going around and around with the same internal split, and are doing things to create a greater rift inside themselves as opposed to integrating the Anima. Here is a video I made on the topic...

This stems from the fact that, until very recently in human history, women have been regarded as week and incapable. So, with 2nd Wave Feminism, there was a movement toward recognizing strength in women. And this birthed the notion of the strong woman, who can do anything a man can do. And this was usually with a Stage Orange framing of being able to be "as good as men" in the workplace. And making the case that women can perform as well as men and be as good as men. And this rhetoric is still used in a lot of Pop-Feminism, which is what the average person is aware of relative to Feminism. So, it's a lot of Dove commercials, Beyonce quotes, and 'Slay girl slay' kind of sentiments. But underneath these seemingly empowering statements of women being strong and just as good as men, there is a shadow. And that shadow is that society thinks that masculinity is superior to femininity. And so, this framing always happens from this masculine supremacy vantage point. So, it's always saying, "women can be as good as men." Like, "You can get there if you try hard and prove yourself." But notice that men are the hallmark that women must aspire to in this 'strong woman' story. And a woman can be strong and excel and be accepted into the boys club in a similar (but not entirely equal) fashion to men... on the condition that she can throw away her femininity in all but appearance and adopt a masculine sensibility about the world. So, there are huge anti-feminine and thus anti-woman shadows to this 2nd Wave Feminist talking point of strong and independent women. And the shadow is that women can excel and be accepted as long as they don't act like women and can draw a distinction between themselves and "the other girls". And we see this in characters in pop culture all the time. Often, the most well-written and endearing female characters are ones that reject femininity and feminine signifiers as trite and silly. Like the (pretty) tomboy who's "not like the other girls" and hates the color pink. And the (pretty) badass chick who's "not like the other girls" and kicks everyone's ass. And the (pretty) down to Earth girl who's "not like the other girls". And the (pretty) manic pixie dream girl who's "not like the other girls". Either that, or you have the (pretty) bitch or the (pretty) dumb bitch, who are always incredibly under-written and unlikable. So, this pop culture trend that was popular when I was younger, that's now in the process of dying out because of the strides that our collective awareness has made in the past half a decade or so relative to our anti-feminine biases. So, what I recommend is not to focus toward being a "strong independent woman" because that's a stock character that exists as a reaction against the oppression that women have faced for many millennia. But because it is an image in resistance to something, it is very much in the same entanglement as that which it pushes against. So, you can never be free from internalized misogyny by adopting an image that was born out of internalized misogyny. It's best to dig deep and be authentic instead. And you can just be a well-rounded person without having to qualify yourself as strong to be a valid woman. Edit: Long story short... the 'strong independent woman' trope was born out of 2nd Wave Feminism and genuinely helped women get more of an equal standing in society and in the workforce. But there are anti-feminine shadows to it, so it's very out-dated and best transcended with a more pro-feminine and authenticity centered way of validating women and people in general, without needing them to be "like the big boys."

@XYZ I wish upon you the privilege to be humbled one day.

Back when I was 20, I paid my rent/bills by busking (playing guitar and singing for tips) in the pedestrian area near where I lived. And most of the buskers were either poor or homeless. I was the former but not the latter. And me and the other buskers would work quite hard to earn our tips. And in the month, I made just about enough to pay my rent and buy some very basic groceries. But I never had enough money to keep the lights on. But I got a bad taste in my mouth about the panhandlers that circled around where I was playing, as they'd usually get more tips than me because they'd come up with some story that they pedaled every day and they'd actually go up and ask for money. One of them was like, "Hey, a couple of buddies and I want to go get some hamburgers from McDonald's. Do you have a few dollars to spare?" And that was an every day story he'd tell. And he even hit me up with that one despite the fact that I was pretty clearly not doing well myself financially, and he was certainly making more money than me. And I think he was probably using. A lot of that is the case. So, because of this experience, I'll opt to get them food from wherever around instead of give money directly. That is, unless I really feel that the person is having a hard time and struggling with pride as they're asking. I just don't want to fund someone's potential overdose as I want to give money to help and not to perpetuate the harm.

I know exactly what you said. And that's why I responded the way that I did. My entire argument is not that you think women shouldn't have the right to vote but that you're foolish for playing devil's advocate with something on a public forum that contributes to the already popular trend of 'playing devil's advocate with women's rights.' And this dialogue creates a dangerous gray area in the social and political discourse that can and often does have a real impact on people's lives. And then, I was also criticizing you for thinking that you're truly capable of being open-minded with this topic when you have no skin in the game. So, all this questioning only amounts to mental masturbation and armchair philosophy for you, and can actually have real consequences for women's lives. And the thing you said in the last paragraph is as laughable as suggesting that the sheep and the wolves should have an open civil dialogue and negotiation about the merits of allowing the wolves unfettered access to the sheep pen... and just having a respectful eye-to-eye conversation and negotiation about it. Because those with differing opinions should be able to engage in civil dialogue in the marketplace of free ideas... right? And the best ideas will win out anyway... right? I mean, it doesn't mean that the men can't have some valuable input about what rights would be wise to strip away from women... right?

I think the main thing that helps is finding the deeper emotional roots and needs from which these issues spring, and dealing with the underlying issues directly through awareness and direct structural change. So, for example, if we look at misogyny, a part of getting rid of it is changing things practically and structurally in terms of how society works and the paradigm we ascribe to. But a lot of the misogyny is directly because of how men are conditioned to repress emotions and punished for any signs of anything that could be construed as feminine. And the glue that hold back all the self-esteem issues and keeps men emotionally safe is a mix of misogyny, homophobia toward gay men, and trans-phobia toward trans-women. But what's really underneath that is a lot of pain, and those things function as a coping mechanism to both hold back the pain and fight against who they perceive as the bringers of that pain. So, these communities of pain, based around hatred and victim's mentality, are really just a group of people in pain who are scapegoating to cope with the pain. But it just winds them up more and more. But if you make the communities of pain obsolete, then they won't gain any more traction. And the regressive ideologies will fade more and more. But this would take a complete overhaul of peoples state of consciousness, which will likely take many generations to really address everything. But I think this emotional core of these issues is the most effective pressure point to target to make incremental change and help people face their shadows and love themselves. It's always the most insecure people who are in victim's mentality that are the easiest to recruit, brainwash, and weaponize. And so we have to address those insecurities at their roots to make the hate groups obsolete.

Exactly. So, there are two things here. One of the things is self-exploration and pulling things apart and being able to suspend beliefs. And this is incredibly important for consciousness work. It's about turning over all the rotting logs inside yourself to free yourself from what holds you back. And to become aware of what you would otherwise hide from. The other thing is much more external, practical, and results oriented. And those are the parameters, rules, and guidelines for how society runs. And it's important that we're able to draw blacks and whites even though reality and our relationship to it is anything but black and white. But if the end goal is to have a functional and healthy society (which is wisest if you value a high quality of life), then you have to be able to draw a distinction between what's acceptable and unacceptable. And when these devil's advocates are mentally masturbating and pontificating upon the validity of women's rights, then it create a gray area in the social and political discourse. And it opens to doors to human regression. And as a woman, I have very real skin in the game. I would probably rather kill myself than live in a society where I don't have basic human rights, as I'd rather die with dignity. So, it's very annoying and extremely disturbing to see these "rogue intellectuals and philosophers" casually questioning the validity of my right to be seen and respected as fully human. And then thinking of that dangerous game of armchair philosophy that will never affect them as virtuous and open-minded. And then chiding me on my own open-mindedness, when I'm the one down in the trenches as they're watching the war from on television.

Also, relative to this point, which I didn't address before. This deep digging that I've done into this topic has been specifically to untie myself from what constrains me. And it's a pattern that affects every single person... especially women. It keeps them cut off from their natural power-source of the Divine Feminine. And this is 100% necessary for humanity going forward. So, the pain of this exploration is worth it to me. And if you've enjoyed my perspective in my videos, as I know you've said you've enjoyed them and got a lot out them. Then, you can only thank my willingness to descend into what's ugly and dark and pulls everything apart in me. As I wouldn't have the perspectives that I have without having done this.

Sometimes it's important to take the kid gloves off. And it's always wading through this lazy devil's advocacy with so many people online. And it has a real effect on people and is fundamentally boundary-breaching which conjures a natural feeling of anger that anyone in this position would naturally feel. So, the feeling is the same with what I wrote here, but I usually conceal the frustration more because it more because it can be weaponized against me. But I figured I was safe to express in that way here. Please don't prove me wrong with your notion that I'm not being nice when i'm just being frank.

I've questioned this topic inside and out for the greater part of decade. And I've really crawled around in the darkness beyond modern concepts of Feminism. And I've done this as someone who would actually be disenfranchised and has an entire self-concept wrapped up in the situation. So, I don't want to hear a single word from you about open-mindedness, relative to this topic. If it doesn't feel emotionally like you're ripping off your own skin, you haven't even scratched the surface of open-mindedness. But that skin-ripping, radical open-mindedness that I've engaged in relative to my place in the world has been quite valuable and enlightening to me to question this topic because I'm actually in the group that's being oppressed. I've walked this labyrinth for a very long time, and I've seen things that most men would be too comfortable to look at and most women would be too uncomfortable to look at. And this descent into the repressed feminine is how I've been able to understand where these regressive perspectives come from and what makes them tick. This is a topic that I know up and down, in a way that few others do. And I'm not saying that to toot my own horn, but as a matter of fact. I've spent longer with this issue, questioning everything more than anyone I've ever known. I've been in the belly of that beast, having all of my attachments to pride and self-hood torn apart and digested. And the reason why this is possible for me, is because there is no place for me to become comfortable with this topic because I'm a woman. It always feels like death and dismemberment to shed my attachment to my personhood and questioning the validity of my own rights. So, I either have the choice to block it all out or dig deeper. And I'm one to dig deeper because I have a morbid curiosity and a touch of masochism. So, I'm the one wading through a sea of lemon juice with tons of open wounds. You are not. And your version of open-mindedness and the irresponsible way that you share it, is both disturbing and laughable to me. If a man is doing this type of questioning, it won't typically yield positive results because he is fundamentally comfortable asking such questions. He doesn't actually have much skin in the game and fundamentally doesn't understand what it is like to be in this position relative to these questions. So, any so-called "open-mindedness" from your perspective is a easy-peasy-lemon-squeezy game of devil's advocate. Where you're just engaged in arm-chair philosophy about the validity of women's rights. And asking these questions in a public forum the way that you are has real consequences as it normalizes these questions as legitimate platforms which enable things that regress us as an entire species and put women and the Divine Feminine back in the pinions that they used to be in. So, there is real weight behind the way that you're doing your questioning. So, dafuq up out my face with your ideas about open-mindedness. Go dig into your own wounds looking for evidence that may undermine your entire sense of self and maybe we can have an eye-to-eye conversation. And stop playing devil's advocate. It's not a virtue like you think it is. And that's because it's too easy.

No shit Sherlock! I sincerely hope you don't think that I was buying into the things he was saying or thinking in that way. My post is clearly not in favor of his worldview. Number one, I don't "follow" him in the first place. I've seen several videos of his over the years, and thought they were okay at best. Just a weightlifter who'd learned some basic personal development stuff and some New Agey stuff. But I was a bit surprised when I stumbled across the video where he was basically entertaining the notion of 'men needing to do men things and women needing to do women things' and 'maybe stripping women voting rights being a good thing.' His previous videos hadn't been that bad, even though he was always all about "being alpha" which is somewhat of a red flag, so perhaps I shouldn't have been surprised. On another note, you seriously need to stop preaching to the choir like they're not the choir. This is the second time within a few days where you've given me some really 'duh' advice.

Well, the non-antagonizing thing won't happen. What you have is two different paradigms fighting it out, that can't see eye to eye. In fact, it's not even a good thing for them to see eye-to-eye because that would put a stopper in progress. Take the antagonism happening now as a sign of growing pains. They're uncomfortable but necessary for progress. Polarization always happens before growth, even in the way our cells split. If it stings, you know it's working.

Do you mean you're curious about what @Leo Gura thinks about the content of my post or that you're curious as to whether or not I'm violating community guidelines? If it's the former, I'm pretty sure that Leo and I have roughly the same perspective on this. If it's the latter, I'm not sure.

This is what I meant by intellectual masturbation. You're debating the term corruption and what it means and playing devil's advocate as opposed to actually valuing having a healthy society. So, this is a really terrible question toward that end, because you're introducing nuance where it's strategically important to draw blacks and whites. Otherwise, that nuance can then be weaponized by those who are corrupt, and they can hide just outside of whatever definition of corruption is given. But let's call corruption anything that detracts from the health, prosperity, and functionality of an entire society for the benefit of the few. So, corruption is a hidden virtue... for those who are corrupt. But it is not a virtue for society as a whole, and that's my entire point. Yes, democracy DOES require awareness to be utilized from the bottom upward, and that's what I'm trying to help with right now. I'm giving people a perspective that helps them understand the roots of many of our problems, as well as a good step in the right direction for addressing those problems. And it's the strongest movement going right now for this. So, I'm making others aware, so that they're more likely to get on board and add power and numbers to this movement. There are still so many who are unaware. So, this post is to raise awareness. And that's exactly why Bernie Sanders' campaign is important because he has spear-headed so much grass roots awareness and support. And now, all the Democratic candidates that are up are having to tailor their campaigns to seem more progressive, even if they don't mean it. So, he's brought so many issues that few people were aware of a decade ago, into the front and center of public political discourse. He is the one turning the lights on, and it's helpful if we help him do so. What's not helpful is if we mentally mastrubate about what corruption means while 30,000 plus Americans dies each year because of the nature of the healthcare system and the rich get richer and poor get poorer. It's time we stop intellectually bypassing these issues by making everything about a transcendent understanding of perspectives. We really need results, and not everything yields the same results. If we value results, we need to be focused toward functionality instead of getting lost in all these higher up perspectives that are appropriate for higher paradigmatic endeavors like consciousness work, but are piss-poor and totally inappropriate for working within the limitations of the relative perspective and getting certain results that will benefit people and the planet at large. None of these things will work to address the root causes of these problems. This is thinking about pespectives in a very narrow and surface-level way. It's clear that you're not really seeing what makes the conservative paradigm tick or the liberal paradigm tick. They're a very complex system of lenses form which to look at the world. And these systems are as vast and complex as an entire castle built in the sky. So, if you think that getting a conservative high and getting them a black girlfriend will help them break down their castle, then you're just foolish. They'll just incorporate these things into their castle. But the fundamentals of their perspective will stay the same. The same goes for getting liberals to go out and hunt with a rifle. It's not going to topple their entire castle and help them build a new one. And even if this did work, the corruption in the world isn't caused by individual conservative and liberals. Most of the corruption comes from the most powerful and wealthy people buying the government and rigging it against the average person. So, getting conservatives a black girlfriend isn't going to help with that issue. Plus, a lot of racist scapegoating that goes on comes from poor white people thinking that minorities and immigrants are stealing their jobs and stuff like that. So, there is an economic root to racism, and this works in favor of those trotting out the corruption. But again, as I've said before, this entire post is to get people focused toward the root causes of the problem. And then to show that Bernie Sanders is the best person to elect if we want to have a person dismantling these corrupt patterns from the highest seat in the land. Practice thinking more systemically, and you will see clearly what's needed is to focus on bringing awareness to people. And that doesn't have to do with surface level stuff you're talking about. It has to be practical for most people to be interested. And it has to be focused toward the roots. Also, relative to the comments about the pissing contest, I may have some ego in this. I am human. But overall, I am just really passionate about resolving these issues. It deeply upsets me to see people fighting against their own best interests. And I know the best antidote to that is awareness. And drawing blacks and whites, instead of getting bogged down in opinions is very important to raising awareness. Otherwise people get lost in nuance and they lose sight of what's helpful. Also, relative to the politics on the forum thing, I'm not 100% sure on what the policy is. But my post is more about awareness than about politics. So, I think it fits into the discourse of this forum quite well.

That's true that people will always vote based on their current level of awareness. But this doesn't mean that things they're voting for are equally healthy. For example, if we're voting on the type of diet that we eat. And some people are unaware and are voting for the Krispy Kreme doughnut diet, then this poses a threat to human health. So, it's very important that people become more aware of what they're actually voting for and who is most objectively in alignment with human health. So, what I'm saying here is that Bernie is objectively the candidate who is most in alignment with molding society toward human health and prosperity because he is the most dedicated to breaking up corruption. So, I'm saying that, if a person values human wellness, then it's objectively wisest to vote for Bernie. This is a post precisely for raising awareness, so that people can see the value in voting this way. And once people are aware, then they're not going to vote against their own best interests. Thus... this post. I'm trying to bring understanding with what I've written so that people don't get bogged down in opinions and can instead reframe the situation in a more objective and factual way. That's why I said, a person can value corruption and a person can value getting rid of corruption. Those are opinions. But if a person values getting rid of corruption as the desired end, we can then extrapolate some facts for how best to bring about that end in an objective way. So, we can objectively vet candidates based on this desired outcome. And if we're vetting candidates based on how dedicated they are and informed they are about breaking up corruption, then Bernie Sanders is objectively the best candidate by these measures. But if we were valuing the candidate based on how corrupt they are, then we could go back in each candidates record and quantify how corrupt each one is based on how many corrupt acts they've done and how many people it's affected negatively. And then we could make an objective decision that way too. So, as I was dovetailing off the original post's absolutism about Bernie Sanders, I was lighting on the perspective with which it is quite an absolute. And in order for it to be an absolute, there has to be an end goal. So, if that end goal is to abolish corruption in politics, then objectively and absolutely Bernie is the candidate that's most focused on this issue and has been consistent on this issue for his entire 40 year career. That's exactly what I'm doing right now. Perhaps you should cultivate some awareness yourself. You seem to be applying the system of SD onto things, and then thinking that each stage will add up to an equally healthy, harmonious, and prosperous society for all people. So, your end goal is to basically green-light everything because SD validates all perspectives. And while it's true that all the stages in SD are valid and important, not all of them yield the same results. Currently, our society is mostly Orange, and there are very real problems that affect real people that stem from this. So, it's important that we're not intellectual about these issues. If we value living in a healthy society that works for all people, we need to set our end goal as that. And objectively, some politicians will do a better job than others. And some SD levels are more appropriate. In order to do more than just intellectually masturbate about what's valid as a perspective, we need to be more results oriented because people are suffering and our society is suffering. And that's because of corruption. So, we don't need a perspective where someone is using Spiral Dynamics to greenlight things that are objectively harmful for people, based on the relative truth that all SD levels are valid. If we're considering the validity of perspectives, then YES all SD levels are valid. They are important developmental milestones. And we shouldn't demonize people for them. But if we're instead considering what's healthiest for people, then the truth that all SD levels are valid is just being used to maintain homestasis and ensure the perpetuation of the corruption in the current system. When instead, it would objectively be much healthier for society to tackle these issues head-on in grassroots movement and through electing progressive anti-corruption politicians like Bernie Sanders.

So, are you making the argument that the corruption in the political/economic system that we have is necessary for survival? Are you one of the ones I mentioned that values corruption?

I agree. But you should give the details as to why Bernie is the best candidate. Otherwise people will just think you're being opinionated and trying to push your opinion. But you are correct that, if someone values bringing society out of corruption and into a state where politicians work toward the greater good for all people, that Bernie is the best we have right now. And anyone who values politicians working for the people, would objectively be unwise to vote anyone in the race who isn't Bernie Sanders. He's the best and most electable candidate we have toward those ends. Now, if someone values corruption and thinks corruption is a good thing, then you could also say that Bernie is objectively the worst. So, depending on what people value, there can be differences in opinion. But if a person values getting rid of corruption in politics, then objectively Bernie's the right candidate. No opinions here. Just fact. So, I would make an edit to your post. I would say it's those who are misinformed among working people who work against their own self-interest and defend a system that doesn't work for them. This comes from lack of political education and people not really knowing what's going on. But it's pure self-interest for those who are billionaires and have an indifference to working people. They know that, in order to maintain the status quo and/or enrich their pocketbook, they will need to buy out politicians by financing their campaigns. So, someone like Bernie Sanders poses a threat to them because he is not bought and if he were president would be playing hardball and rescinding support for politicians who are bought. So, they will try to smear him. And the mainstream media outlets will do the same. But yes, objectively, Bernie Sanders is the most suitable candidate for making changes that impact human health and prosperity in a positive way. And he's the one that had the most effective strategy for getting those progressive platforms implemented. So, if someone cares most about society coming more into alignment with health, harmony, fairness and prosperity; they would certainly be wisest to vote for Bernie. But if someone wants more of the status quo and corruption in politics, then they should vote for Biden (or any of the other corporate centrists). That way between them and Trump, they are guaranteed to get their wish of more corruption. It would just come down to what flavor of corruption they prefer. So, it's a matter of opinion relative to whether someone values corruption or getting rid of corruption. But for those who don't value corruption, the choice is clear.

Probably a lot of stage Orange with some interest in surface-level Green things. But he also has shown recently a lot of stage Red/Blue to him in that he's very big on the gender difference thing, and even implied that it may be good to stop women from voting. The reason why he said this was basically that society is worse now because men used do men stuff and women used do women stuff, and now that we all do the same things that's caused so many problems. And when the interviewer said to him something like, 'Certainly equality is good in the basic ways like voting, right?' And Elliot responded by saying something that dodged answering the question directly but implied that perhaps we should 'be open minded' and consider rescinding those rights from women. Plus, he's really big into the MGTOW stuff. So, I'm guessing that he's very insecure about his masculinity, and has repressed his Anima which guarantees that a person can never evolve into Green and will likely remain in Orange or perhaps devolve into lower stages and warm toward regressive ideas. Yet again, he may be purely and Orange capitalist and just be uninterested in everything he says, but pedal it out so that he can make money. And now, he may be trying to get the money from people in the 'manosphere' because insecure people are easier to make money off of. This would also explain why he was using and anti-voting rights talking point, because it pleases his target audience who are very misogynistic and would be quite pleased to see women under the boot again. It's hard to tell if he's one of them or if he's just playing to that audience to get some cash.

I think you're doing some mental gymnastics here. And this is what makes you unconscious. Also, I've worked as an assistant teacher before, and it's like 15 times easier than being a full-time teacher. And one of the main reasons why is because you're not responsible for setting the tone of the classroom and being the energy controller. The regular teacher does that. So, as long as you, as the assistant teacher, fall in line and keep to the patterns set by the regular teacher (who is probably actively doing all the work to control the class, which enables you to "have fun" with the kids), then you'll be able to ride the wave he/she is setting without the classroom getting out of control. But understand that the only reason why the environment is conducive to you having fun with the kids is because the teacher who is running the class is doing all the work to maintain a still pond. And you're taking that for granted. But I'm going to guess, that if you have been or will be a full-time teacher of a class, then you're going to have some really big classroom issues where the students don't respect you. And it's best not to bypass these failures and reframe them as you being a more conscious teacher. It's not because you're more conscious, it's because you moralize against the traits that you actually need to be an effective teacher. And this is probably why they demoted you to being an assistant teacher. The kids were probably eating you alive and not learning, and the administration wanted to give you an easier job. And then you rationalized it as "conscious teachers will be fired." as opposed to "I'm not cutting the mustard with my approach to teaching." Is it not so? When the rubber meets the road, your method simply isn't functional. And I know from experience. It doesn't work, and it does the students a dis-service. And that's because you're not having high expectations of them, and the environment is too slack for the students to feel truly challenged and to meet with those challenges. And this just breeds chaos because no one can learn in such an environment.

This is another one of those spiritual bypass and idealism kind of things. People simply don't work that way. You come in like that, and the kids will eat you alive. I've met teachers like that who had that kind of philosophy about teaching (not as extreme of course, or they wouldn't survive through the week with that plan), and the classroom is the opposite of inspiring. The kids just don't respect the teacher because they feel like the teacher has no boundaries and no expectations of them. And many students feel overwhelmed in such a loose environment, especially ones who have sensory issues and/or are on the autism spectrum. But most kids really feel much better with routine, and many experience anxiety at changes. You have to have a lot of warrior energy at your disposal to be a good teacher which includes strategy, discipline, leadership, and high expectations of those who are following your command. They have to know that you're expecting a lot of them and have a sense of stakes. And if they feel like you respect them and have those expectations of them, they will try to reach and impress you. You're not really understanding how human beings work and what they need and want. Structure is a deep need for those growing up. Kids may consciously want more freedom. But they thrive best when that freedom is comfortably supported by discipline and order. So, you can't just be like, "Who wants to learn today?" and then teach based on that. Number one, the kids that don't will create an unbearable classroom situation to teach in. If you even have one student who's allowed to do whatever they want to do, they'll create so many ripples in the pond and the energy of the classroom will slide toward entropy. Things fall apart very easily. And as the teacher, your job is to notice and address all the micro-patterns in the classroom that are a barrier to teaching and student engagement. So, you're really more of an energy director than anything else as a teacher. And the best teachers can pick up on those energetic patterns quickly and put a stopper to them to still the pond so that the kids can focus. And the kids get an intuitive sense for how good the teacher is at doing this. And if they sense weak boundaries, the top three mischief makers will start making energetic ripples in the pond. And then, this will spread out to the next tier of students who are not really mischief makers, but really like socializing and are a bit lax with the rules. And then, once the energetic pattern of entropy has hit that group, you have like 1/4 to 1/3 of the class off-task. And at that point, everyone else but the most responsible students (maybe 1 or 2 of them), is just engaged in doing whatever they want to do... which is socialize and be free. But they are no longer engaged in active learning, and you can't do your job as a teacher at that point. And you're doing the kids a dis-service.

I certainly wasn't in a threatening position relative to her position. So, it wasn't anything like that. Now, she does pride herself on being academically intellectual, and I had thought that perhaps she may have been envious relative to the way I generally think about things because I am intelligent but in a more intuitive kind of way that she's not very good at because of her rigidity. But I would say that I can see that she was inundated by similar conditioning to me, only she never really got out of it. I really feel like, to her, achievement equals inherent value. And I was certainly on that track until my awakening experiences 10 years ago. But on the surface, in life, I don't think many people (including her) would recognize that similarity of conditioning. She would probably see me as quite the diametric opposite to how she is. And that's really why I think she disliked me, as she saw me as fundamentally weird and 'not one of her kind'. She's very extroverted and I'm very introverted. She's very type A and I'm very type B. She's quite keen to interject herself and pressure others, and most people would describe me as quiet, reserved, laid back, and unlikely to impose upon others. And the primary way that the vast majority people would describe me as would be as nice but a bit shy and a bit spacey and a bit awkward. I think you might see me as a more forceful person because my views differ from yours, and the fact that the forum has this particular format that's very conducive to sharing ideas directly. And on certain issues, I do stick to my guns because I see it as wise because the situations involving them have real consequences. But in life, I'm very unlikely to interject in any way. Most of the time I'm very relaxed about things. And I don't share a lot with others because I've learned my lesson on that.

Being fixated upon who's alpha is the definition of being beta. Just drop these ideas. They're not real.

You should check out Jean Raffa's books as well as her blog Matrignosis. She's not very well-known, but she is my favorite Jungian author. Plus, she has bibliographies in the back of her books that give a lot of resources that are also very helpful for exploration into Jungian perspectives.

Perhaps are you doing this to women for their looks, and then the judgments you make toward them looks-wise come back to bite bite you because you then start thinking in an objectifying way about yourself in terms of status and questioning which men deserve and don't deserve an attractive woman as a signifier of their worth? This is really the reason why so many men are freaking about hypergamy. They engage in hypergamy with women for their looks and then project that every woman on the planet is doing it to them for their money and status, when it's really just a small minority of women who are like that. The solution is to integrate your anima and to be a real person and see women as real people.

For sure. Luckily, at the time, I was listening to a lot of Law of Attraction stuff from Teal Swan. And I was able to redefine the narrative in a more empowering way. And it's ultimately what's lead me to create my channel and have a career that gives more of the impact I want to have doing what I do best. So, it's a stroke of good luck in the end. But I'm not gonna lie, I think that lady was a ______. Exactly. See the reply above. I'm over 4 years out from that situation and it's much better now, beyond what I could have imagined. She wasn't like Mrs. Trunchbull. She was much more like academic, high-acheiving, judgy, attractive young business lady boss who's very assertive and Type A and thinks she knows everything. I'm trying to think of a character like that. It's like if Hermione Granger grew up and kept her high-acheiving nature but lost her heart. Mind you, administrators are USUALLY required to teach in a classroom for at least three years before becoming an administrator. But she was in VIRTUAL school for about 6 months teaching, but her boyfriend was able to open some doors for her to climb a bit higher, earlier. None-the-less, she loved telling teachers what they were doing right and wrong, even if said teacher had had 30 years of experience in the profession. So, that's the best impression that I can give you of her. But as for the question about the systematic thing, I think it was actually very pointed toward me. But I think it does, in a sense, have to do with my personality type. I've noticed a lot of leadership types really dislike me, and it's always been that way even when I was a small child. I think I read to them as just incredibly strange and crazy. I was actually really surprised about this myself. I had never been targeted out like that before. I've gotten vibes like that, but it never went beyond vibes. So, I actually genuinely thought that if I changed the things she wanted me to change that she'd be taking that into consideration. But she's already made up her mind. Maybe she was actually going to fire me on the spot if I failed to change the things she wanted me to change. Either way, by the end, it was really clear that she had all the power in the situation and I had no recourse to fight back. So, I will never work for anyone other than myself ever again.