Emerald

Let's get more at the core of why you're asking as opposed to what you're asking because that's a lot more important. I feel the reason why you ask is because you are insecure about some possibility relative to your inquiry. So, you're looking for confirmation of a certain outcome, and to avoid another outcome that you're afraid of. And this can be sliced in several directions. So, ask yourself these questions... What would it mean to you if you empirically discovered that men were definitively better leaders than women, in an undisputed way? How would that make you feel? What would it mean to you if you empirically discovered that women were definitively better leaders than men, in an undisputed way? How would that make you feel? What would it mean to you if there were a 50/50 split in leadership potential between men and women? How would that make you feel? What would it mean to you if there were no definitive answer to that questions? How would it make you feel? Look for the which of these possibilities above that temporarily relieve your anxiety/insecurity, and look for the possibilities above that cause you anxiety and amplify insecurities you have. Some potential feelings that I could imagine from a male standpoint are these... You feel anxiety at the idea that men being inherently better leaders than women because you've had a modern/feminist viewpoint and this if option number one were true, it would call those ideas into question causing you a lot of cognitive dissonance. It would also potentially make you feel like you need to conform more to the traditional masculine role to be accepted, which may or may not resonate with you. You have taken for granted your entire life that option number one is true and that men are indeed better leaders. But you are beginning to question and get insecure about that sense of male supremacy. So, any other option than option number one makes you question male surpremacy and your own value and position in the pecking order that you have in your mind relative to the value of men compared to women. Option number two is especially scary because it makes you feel like you're in the one-down position that you've assumed women were in. You want to be a leader yourself, and you'd like to fall back on your maleness as confirmation of your own capacity to lead to feel more self assured based in the folk wisdom that men are leaders. But your doubts about male supremacy relative to leadership is making you doubt your own capacity to lead, because your maleness is the only thing that makes you feel like you could/should lead others. So, this is fundamentally a feeling like you don't have anything to offer and maleness being the only asset you have toward leadership and being afraid of having that bargaining chip taken away because that's all you feel that you have. You are swallowing all the internet manly man culture and trying to be more masculine to attract women and to feel more worthwhile and are trying to empower yourself through a fetishization of masculinity. And part of that fetishization of masculinity is to frame it as the ability to lead and dominate. And your doubts about your own masculinity and leadership potential are making you question what's actually true. Like do I have hidden leadership potential because I'm male that I just haven't realized yet? Or is this idea that men have more leadership potential actually false, and I don't actually have leadership potential? Am I just not a leader and I'm in the lower ranks of men? Or maybe women and men are equal and I don't have any advantage... You don't want to be a leader. But you've heard that men who are worthwhile are inherent leaders. So, you feel a bit like you have to be a leader even though you don't really want to be or believe that you can be. So, you're looking for information about women being equal in leadership to men to debunk the idea that valuable men are leaders, so you don't have to potentially see confirmation as to your own lack of worth because you are not really a leader but you are male and feel the need to prove your worth in relation to these ideas of maleness that come from places like the manosphere and general folk ideas about what makes a man a man. These are just a few potentials that came to my mind in seeing your question and feeling the nervous energy of it. If you want clarity and to resolve your insecurity, you must be brutally honest with yourself about how you feel about yourself, about leadership, about men, about women, about your beliefs about gender, etc. When you're doing shadow work (which is what you need), you must not be politically correct with your own view of your internal landscape. You must look at what you actually believe and assume, even if it paints you in a light that you don't like to be seen in. And only then, can you unravel your insecurity about your maleness/masculinity and your ability to lead. And ultimately, the point here is to eventually discover what you really want and why you want it?

It depends on what you want and what you're capable of in terms of connection and receptivity. I would say that if you're in a position where you're not ready to make a soul-deep connection with someone, a LTR will probably be more work than what it's worth. But if you and a partner are both attuned to one-another and are on the same page and trying to grow consciously together, then a LTR is really excellent for that. You can't get that depth of connection over the short term. But the problem is that people don't see that they're just trying to get their partner to behave in a certain way they project them to or think they should. So, they only ever interact with their projection onto that person. So, there is no connection to be had. And this gets felt more and more as the relationship matures. Also, women's libido dropping comes more from not knowing how to get a woman in the mood and there not being a very deep connection. So, basically a lack of communication, intimacy, and emotional variety in sex and the time leading up to sex. This integral after the first few months of a relationship... or the girl won't be aroused. The newness of the connection will be enough at first, but afterward the intimacy needs to push much deeper.

This is just more mental gymnastics to blind yourself to what would otherwise be obvious. Just start to notice who he's "tough" on and who he's "easy" on. And it will be really clear that there are no parallels in this analogy between Trump and a Nazi protester.

Again. You are straw manning me. I said that I support common sense immigration policy, yet you act as though I'm all pie in the sky and advocating for open borders with no regulations. At this juncture in history, we still need these delineations for practical purposes. The problem is when people dehumanize others simply because they come from a place on the opposite side of those imaginary lines. Instead of simply thinking of the border as a practical delineation for immigration regulation, they think of it as some existential line carved by God himself that delineates the desirables from the undesirables. And this attitude is clearly reflected in the Trump administration's treatment of immigration policy, including but not limited to the policy of separating children from their families at the border. But yes. Leading with love and compassion is going to be the best solution in any case. And I say so, not from a place of naivete but from a place of having experienced struggle. It's often easiest to judge what we don't understand from the outside. But if we've been down and out, we can start to relate to others who are also struggling as opposed to judging and demonizing them and superimposing the image of the criminal onto an entire group of men, women, and children. Now, there will always be criminals in every group. There is no getting around that. But the good news is that, among the immigrant population, they are statistically less likely to commit crimes than native born citizens. And this is specifically because they want to stay here and lay low. The last thing they want is the attention of police. So, all the "they're bringing crime" talk is just using a falsehood and fear-mongering to justify shooting flies with a cannon and perpetuating cruel and dehumanizing treatment against immigrants. And it's also meant to make people react with fear and disgust and think of immigrants coming into the country like they're a bunch of criminals that are going to infest our country and ruin everything... And it appears that that rhetoric has worked on you.

Consider perhaps that murdering you might be for the greater good. Are you going to accept the workings of the universe and be as calm as you are and accept your fate with the level of detachment you have now if you're the one on the chopping block? My guess is, probably not. You would probably kick and beg and scream for mercy... as would I. You have a vested interest emotionally in keeping yourself alive and free from pain and suffering just as all other beings do. And if you were really aware, you would also have a vested interest in reducing suffering for others as an extension of yourself without engaging in mental gymnastics by guessing at the long-term effects of a good deed versus a bad deed and engaging in apologism relative to corrupt and unethical behavior. With this logic, you might as well Greenlight genocide or cutting every 10th person's head off, because perhaps (maybe could be kind of) it eventually leads to a better future some time down the line. Now, recognize that all the people who would suffer under this thought process are also yourself (because they are). Does it makes sense to you from that perspective to intellectually and spiritually bypass your natural human compassion and the obviousness of certain actions being harmonious and others more discordant. And to refrain from advocating for things that are obviously more conducive to well-being and against things that obviously cause sufferign. So, we can apologize for all those that don't care and behave in Machiavellian ways and create suffering all we want on the basis that "perhaps they're contributing to the greater good in ways we don't recognize." And while this may be true, it's not a very good bet to make relative to our own behavior. And it's also not a good bet to make relative to what we should and shouldn't stand for in our society, as this has real consequences that effect primarily people who are more vulnerable than you are. And if you end up on the chopping block, all that intellectual/spiritual bypassing you're engaged in won't mean diddly squat as you call out for mercy and some random person on the forum muses and armchair philosophizes about it being the best thing perhaps not to fight against it because maybe your death would save so many others. It's very unwise to always reach for top shelf spiritual truths when approaching a situation on the relative level. So, we can't use the top-shelf spiritual truths like "Everything is perfect" and "We never actually know what's good or bad in the long run" and "There's no such thing as good and bad", to invalidate relative and practical truths like "Bad things are bad." and "Good things are good".

Number one, the children didn't choose to go on the journey. And the parents (many of them seeking asylum) didn't know that they'd be separated from their children. Most come in seeking a better life. And it isn't even classified as a serious offense. So, it's cruel and unusual for that level of offense. Imagine taking children away from parents because the parent jaywalked. So, it's a very cruel thing to separate children from their parents in that situation. Some of the kids were even toddlers and couldn't process what was going on. But you act like I'm advocating for open borders when I'm criticizing a very barbaric policy that's unnecessarily caused a lot of trauma. So, don't behave as though this policy is just reflective of the president, border patrol, and ICE "doing their jobs". This is clearly over-reaching. We need common sense immigration policy. We don't need to inject cruelty or stupidity into the mix to get things done.

I already said that Obama was called the deporter in chief and that he bombed a bunch of civilians in Yemen. I'm no Obama apologist. If your defense of Trump's policy is "So what... a liberal did it too." then that's a piss-poor defense. The fact of the matter is that it's wrong to separate children from their parents at the border. So, even if they moved them to better facilities later on, it still is a very traumatic experience for them. Also, several children have died since being taken into custody. So, I'm very suspicious about the conditions they are living in. Stop apologizing for corrupt politicians.

This is well-known that the Trump administration separated children from their families and kept them detained in enclosures that are basically larger dog kennels. Here is a video...

Again... could you say that if YOU were currently a starving African child from where you are now consciously? If you were starving would you really be saying, "There is no me. So, there is no me staving." If you couldn't feel that truth from the standpoint of being a starving child, then you're not actually in touch with the Truth yourself. Your mind just thinks it understands and congratulates itself on being the wiser one. And attaching to these truths in this way is just spiritual bypassing and using top shelf truths to gloss over relative truths. So, consider that you don't actually know what's true, and that you're just clinging to canned intellectualized spiritual insights that make the world seem less scary to you and to feel like you know and have more control and expertise. And realize that bringing up higher truths in the midst of a lower truth conversation is an inappropriate paradigm to enter into... especially when there are real stakes on the relative level.

It was a rhetorical "I don't understand". The reason why is because he's playing partisan politics with this issues by saying... "So... a liberal did it too." But they're not connecting to the reality of the matter. They're just seeing it within the "left/right" dichotomy instead of the "benevolent/malevolent" dichotomy.

Yeah. They called Obama the deporter in chief. Not to mention, Obama bombed a bunch of civilians in Yemen. So, I don't even understand why you'd bring up Obama's destructive behavior to justify/excuse Trump's destructive behavior.

If you can say that from the perspective of a child living in a cage on the Mexican border who hasn't seen their parents in a year-and-a-half then more power to you. But if you are unable to do that, then check your self-deception and spiritual bypassing.

I agree. Which is why I believe Trump's diplomacy/denuclearization bids are naive at best. Either that or they're for show. Or potentially some other fuckery and trying to add another dictator to the collection. Though I don't really know if NK has anything to offer.

I don't know if this was a response to what I said. But it does actually matter to KJU if Trump is trustworthy, even if Trump will only be in there for a limited amount of time. If he sees that Trump is staging a coup in Venezuela and knows that the U.S. does a ton of regime change wars all the time, then he genuinely has something to fear. Now, I don't know if NK actually has any resources Trump/America would be interested in, but if I were in KJU's position I would be reticent to negotiate denuclearization with a world superpower that's well-known for their wars and picking on smaller countries. But if I were a dictator like KJU, I would also be a bit excited that Trump/America came to me. Like I said before, the U.S. backs like 70% of the world's dictatorships and even supplies weapons to them. If KJU thinks these negotiations could lead to something like that that, then he'd certainly be very interested in Trump.

A Centrist Democrat is basically center right. Centrist Democrats are still Blue/Orange even if they pay lip service to social issues (which Trump definitely doesn't do because he's not supportive of lgbt issues, women's issues, poc issues, or any of that..., so he's nowhere near even a Centrist Democrat by those standards). Trump does, however, do a lot of fake populism that makes him seem like he's gunning for the average white American working/middle class person. But he sees through on none of it. His interests are corporate interests and the interests of the billionaire class because he belongs to both of these groups. But he said all kinds of blatant lies like "Coal's coming back" and "I'm not going to outsource jobs" to get poor whites in the Rustbelt and elsewhere to vote for him. As far as mainstream American politics goes, you only really start tiptoeing into Green territory with Justice Democrats who are actively supporting progressive platforms for the good of the people and not just big corporate interests who can afford to buy the government. These are platforms like Medicare for All, a living wage, The Green New Deal, free college, getting money out of politics, and GENUINELY addressing income inequality. Most Democrats and ALL Republicans basically work for big corporations who line their pockets so that they can do the shady business deals they want. So, the standard politician on both sides either play to the social issues that left-leaning or right-leaning folks care about. So, a Democrat past 2010 would pay lip service to marriage equality, once they knew enough people in the base were on board. And a Republican would pay lip-service to pro-life legislation. But neither of these politicians actually care about that enough to upset their cash cows. They'll vote right along with whatever legislation that their donors support. So, they are deeply entrenched in Blue/Orange because Blue/Orange is their bread and butter. Trump is definitely Blue/Orange. No question about it. So is our system. So, is Neoliberal Centrism.

Consider this... Why on Earth would North Korea denuclearize when America is staging so many regime change wars in so many countries? In order for Trump's negotiations to work out, Kim Jung Un would have to genuinely believe that Trump wouldn't stage a coup on North Korea after they relinquish their weapons... in the face of the Trump administration's new efforts to stage a coup is Venezuela and continued occupations/regime changes in so many other countries. So, why would a small country, relinquish its only major weapon when negotiating with Trump? Would that be a good idea for them to do? I think not. Diplomacy is a good idea, and certainly it's better to practice diplomacy than war with NK. But in order to properly practice diplomacy the other countrys' leaders would actually have to trust America and the Trump administration. The U.S. supports over 70% of the world's dictatorships and even supplies weapons to some of them. So, if Trump is trying to get NK to denuclearize, the certainly it will make KJU suspicious as to what his motives are. But if his desires for denuclearize and diplomacy are genuine, then he's definitely not thinking it through properly. Not exactly a Spiral Dynamics wizard thing to do...

I would say that art by itself isn't really a life-purpose. It's more-so what impact you'd like to have with your art. What do you want to communicate and how do you want it to effect society? What would you like to say?

She might not be gone. But if you brought her to some pick-up thing, it's probably not going to make her feel very good and will potentially send her some red flags and mixed signals. Imagine she'd brought you to a "fuck lot's of guys" tour. You probably wouldn't be feeling very good about it, especially if you were in a FWB situation that was in the running to go toward a relationship. You're not really showing her that you care about her specifically. Now, you might say that RSD is different than that. But in the eyes of a woman who's vetting you out to be a partner, that's going to effectively be the near-equivalent her bringing you on a "fuck lot's of guys" tour.

I recommend shifting from 'product-oriented' sex to 'process-oriented' sex. So, sex is more about communication, connection, and self-expression than it is about the orgasm. This will make it a lot better for her especially since there will be more focus toward emotional connection than there is toward the physical. So, that way, when you and your partner are making love there is no bar to meet and it becomes a more creative and enjoyable act.

At present, I definitely live from the perspective of ego. But I am a lot less neurotic as a result of those experiences and the inner work that I've done over the course of the past 9 or 10 years. I don't take things quite as seriously as I used to.

This is incorrect thinking. The thing that helps both anxious and avoidant people heal their past traumas is to get contrast and to actually experience a healthy attachment based in unconditional presence and love without expectation for the other person to go against what's right for them. So, if both he and she are able to communicate honestly enough and have the other's best interest at heart, this friendship could be excellent for healing and experiencing a healthy relationship. It would be hard work. She would have to practice giving him space as he needs it and not acting from her neediness, and he would have to practice opening up and communicating his feelings. But given that anxious and avoidant people often mirror eachother in terms of their reactions to trauma, they act as representations of the shadow to eachother and can also help them integrate the opposite in themselves. And this can help neutralize the imbalance.

Excellent! Hopefully this situation will help give you both the contrast and practice with forming healthy attachments. I think this is probably the most fruitful way to go about this situation.

A man who is naturally more feminine will always be more feminine. But there is masculinity there as well. The real question to ask is, "Why do I want to be more masculine?" Sometimes the desire itself could indicate unrealized masculine potential that has not yet been developed or is repressed that wants to be integrated. Or the desire could relate to simply wanting a certain type of social approval, which would mean that the desire itself is just a means to an end. The main thing is to seek to develop as much of your potential as you can and to let yourself bloom. If you're really developing yourself as a person and growing yourself, more of your potential will come up and will no longer be unrealized. And when it does, embrace it regardless of whether or not it's feminine or masculine.

You're dealing with Anima Possession. Because there is a disintegration of the Anima (the female aspect in a man a.k.a the feminine side), there is a deep longing to reconnect and integrate the repressed Anima. This translates as a deep need for connection to the feminine which is often translated as a desperate need for female validation and sexual communion with women. But this healing doesn't really work this way. They way to heal is to integrate the Anima by releasing resistance to the feminine. Also, because the Anima is rejected, it gets angry at you and projects the shadow feminine onto women as a whole group. So, you will see women as heartless succubi that are up on a pedestal and holding your personal value in their hands. And you'll get angry and try to drag them down off that perceived pedestal. But the thing to understand that none of this is actually happening in external reality. It is a dynamic that's playing out INTERNALLY and being projected and superimposed onto reality. So, you are feeling rejected by women, because the Anima has been rejected and is enacting revenge upon you for casting it away. And so it becomes this mix of desperation for sex and female validation along with hatred of women and a desire to dominate them in the way that you project that they dominate and control you. As a woman, it's very uncomfortable to have men come and try to depedestal you, when the pedestal is just a figment of their imagination. And it's very uncomfortable to have men try to diminish your power as a woman, when you don't possess the power they perceive you to have. So, as someone who has been on the receiving end of Anima projection, I can tell you that this perceived dynamic is entirely a figment of the unconscious mind.