Emerald

Conscripted doesn’t necessarily mean “on the front lines”. There are plenty of roles in the military. But yes… it’s fair if there’s a draft that women get sent to war. But I disagree with the draft anyway.

?

I’m sure that the Feminists are relieved that you’ve scratched them from consideration. ? But I feel like you’re feeling threatened for no reason. Women are just trying to live their lives… they’re not competing with you. And women who want an equal partnership will just go for a man who shares their values and also wants an equal partnership and will avoid the men who want her to conform to traditional gender roles. She won’t waste her time trying to convince you to share her values. She’ll just sort you from consideration because of the incompatibility. And women at your work are genuinely going to appreciate you treating them the same as you treat men. Women will not care if you don’t open doors for them. They won’t even notice, tbh. And if you’re ‘leading your female co-workers by the hand’ already… why on Earth are you doing this? Sounds like you’re making it up… or they’re using your benevolent sexism to take advantage of you and get you to do their work for them. - But benevolent sexism is different than simply noticing general differences between men and women. So, it isn’t sexism to say “men are generally taller than women” or “women tend to be physically weaker than men.” These are just general patterns that can be noticed. Benevolent sexism creates a narrative that puts women up on a pedestal in some way. And it strips us of our basic humanity and typically casts us into narrower roles. So, benevolent sexism is like “Lizzie Borden couldn’t have possibly killed those people because she is a delicate flower and would certainly faint at the sight of blood because her refined feminine sensitivities.”

They are probably of the notion that logical = intelligent… when very logical people tend to get things wrong quite a lot. They think logical equals true. But logical just refers to what makes the most sense given certain pre-supposed assumptions about reality. That means, if we assume that the world is flat… then it makes good logical sense that we could sail off the edge of it. It’s a false premise. But it is totally logical. And I’ve noticed that men do fall in these traps a bit more than women because men tend to be systematic algorithmic logical thinkers while women tend to be more intuitive emotional thinkers. And if a man holds a great deal of false premises, his logical orientation will make him an simultaneously intellectual and foolish. I’m sure you know the type of person I’m talking about. The issue is that the social scientists are so steeped in patriarchal thinking that (even in their attempts at Feminism) they don’t realize that they’re biased toward masculine principled orientations and against feminine principled orientations.

Thank you ?

I agree with this. On one question, it said something about men and women’s emotional intelligence. And I would say that women are generally more attuned to the emotional/social matrix… observably so. And a good bit of that comes from how we’re wired, as testosterone tends to blunt emotional awareness. And this comes in handy for earlier times when it was necessary to hunt and kill for food and protection. So, it does seem to take the perspective that all general differences between men and women are nurture-based and not nature-based… and it lumps in noticing these generalities with benevolent sexism. But the reality is that some things are conditioned in… and other things are just general patterns of behavior that can be noticed.

I would think that this is pretty obvious. Hostile sexism is negative feelings and sentiments about women like “women aren’t rational, so only men should be politicians”. Benevolent sexism is like the “women should be protected at all costs”… which actually means, “women are weak and fragile, and the men who own them should protect them at all costs.” Benevolent sexism casts women as the fairer, weaker sex who is idealized as a caricature of femininity that is both above and below the humanity of men. Hostile sexism and benevolent sexism are two sides to one coin.

Yes. It’s very unhelpful… and often patronizing. It tends to cement a patriarchal narrative, and puts women up on a pedestal within that narrative. But there’s no real power there. And it creates this polarization where women are either viewed as angels or demons… and totally negates the basic humanity that is there.

Just to clarify, (and you might already know this and just be joking… I’m not sure though)… If you got 86% benevolent sexism, then you didn’t actually choose the “woke” or pro-woman answers. It’s a little bit like assuming all Asian people are good at math. It may seem positive on its surface, but it leads to plenty of negative outcomes for women.

If a woman is grinding on you, she’s going to anticipate that you’ll get aroused. In fact, if she’s grinding on you, she might be trying to get you hard. But it seems to me that you might be imagining lots of negative situations in your head about how she’ll react. Kind of like, if you’re reading all the signs of interest but make one not-so-perfect move, that she will do a 180 and now she’ll be judgmental about it. But what I would challenge you to do, is to practice imagining things going well. If you’re constantly imagining rejection, this will increase your anxiety. But if you train yourself to anticipate your advances being reciprocated by envisioning scenarios where women are responding well… this can cut down on your anxiety.

No… don’t fake it. Have it be something you genuinely want to show her as a human being talking to another human being. It’s part of developing intimacy to share something interesting with her. And it’s not just to check her bodily reaction for the sake of confirmation. It’s to give HER an excuse to sit next to you and get physically closer to you. And for you to read her cues and subtly escalate the situation into physical intimacy. So, it’s all about connecting and building fondness and intimacy. As a woman, this is one of my favorite types of escalation to be on the receiving end of. And that’s because it’s very subtle and lends to anticipation and lots of opportunities for sub-communication. It also gives the woman a lot of control over the escalation of the physical aspect. So, it feels non-intrusive. And it is an indicator that the man has a degree of subtlety and social/emotional awareness that many guys lack.

I’m not judging. Many fetishes take their roots in traumas and deeper psychological undercurrents.

What you can do in these cases is to create a more innocent form of physical contact. That way you don’t feel like you have to go from 0% to 100%. So, let’s say that you’re in the same room as a girl and you want to get closer to her… Look up something interesting on your phone that would take you over a minute to tell her about. Let’s say that you and your friends went on a trip somewhere cool and you want to show her the pictures from that trip. And you’d invite her over to check out the pictures. And if she’s interested, she will probably take that opportunity to sit very close to you and lean in because you’ve given her plausible deniability. If she’s not interested, she will find a way to create space so as not to give you the wrong idea. And if she is interested and does sit close, move your leg slightly to make slight contact with her let. But do it such the you have plausible deniability. Nothing that feels too deliberate. If she’s not interested, she will move her leg away to make room for yours. But if she is interested, she will keep her leg there and might even move slightly closer to subtly and deliberately communicate to you that she likes it. Then you can be more deliberate about the physical contact that your leg is making against hers. And even if you’re talking about the trip, the sub-communication that’s happening there is obvious at that point. And she knows that you know and you know that she knows. And from there, once you get enough signals… you can make deliberate eye contact and if she holds it, you can lean in to kiss her. So, I wanted to share this hypothetical scenario to give an example of how to inch closer without having to make a big leap. And in the club it’s even easier. If she’s dancing with you, you can initiate subtle physical contact at first with some degree of plausible deniability. Then she will lean into in or pull away. And if she leans in, then you escalate further.

When I was younger, I was primarily motivated by a desire to impress the guy I was interested in. And it added this libidinal charge to all of my endeavors because I would imagine him being intrigued and impressed by me. He was always like a muse figure. And it was very effective at motivating me. But I realized later that this libidinal charge was coming from a deeper well than just the desire to impress the object of my affections. It was actually coming from a deep desire for communion and oneness in general. It was always a spiritual drive. And I suspect that your desire to impress women is likewise coming from a spiritual urge. Can you notice that?

Hi ? Good to see you!

a. Very young people do develop quite a lot. b. Development isn’t contingent upon people reading Actualized threads or knowing anything about Spiral Dynamics And regardless of gender, an incompatibility of perspective and development is going to create issues. Traditionalist women won’t be interested in a very developed man. She won’t even be able to recognize his development as a good thing. She will be interested in men who are at the same phase as her who share their values. The same is true for traditionalist men to developed women. In terms of SD, Stages Green, Yellow, and Turquoise people look like degenerates and weirdos to Stage Blue people. And Stage Blue people look limited and closed minded to the stages above them. So personality development and perspective will absolutely matter to both men and women. Men can’t just be with any random woman and have a happy relationship. I know this from being a life-coach and knowing plenty of men who feel like their wives and gfs can’t even see them.

This isn’t true though. If you’re not on the same wavelength as your partner, then this is going to create issues and incompatibilities. For example, (to use Spiral Dynamics as a model) if a stage blue 35 year old starts dating a stage blue 25 year old… the 25 year old is probably going to progress quite a bit while the 35 year old won’t as much. So, if the 25 year old develops to stage Orange or green, this will become a very difficult relationship where the 25 year old outgrows the 35 year old. And they will go seeking for a more compatible partner who is more on their wavelength. Personality and consciousness level proximity is very important for maintaining a relationship with someone… romantic or platonic.

I’d say that’s a fair assessment of progressives

The key word here is SAY

You said that personality doesn’t matter to men… only to women. This is not an “unfounded leap” You we’re the one that said it. Don’t try to backpedal now and pretend that you didn’t.

But does she know that you don’t value her personality? I guarantee you the adorable texts would cease if she realized that you saw her as fungible.

It definitely is boring to imagine such a one-sided relationship as it’s not even a relationship at all. It’s just a man and his doll. Pygmalian and Galatea If women are wise, they’ll avoid the Pygmalions of the world and leave them to their blow up dolls.

That sounds incredibly boring

Does she know that you actually see her as Galatea? I can’t imagine that she’d like that you see her personality as unimportant.

Channeling your anger at external situations toward productive work is one thing. But using trauma for motivation is a totally different animal. It can create a situation where people become motivated only to run away from retraumatization. And atrophy and lose sight of positive motivation. And it becomes dangerous to heal from trauma because your whole motivational process is scaffolded upon your trauma. I used to be motivated mostly by fear of my own self-hatred. And I built my discipline and motivation “muscles” up in relation to self-hatred. And now, since healing quite a bit of my self-hatred, I’m still trying to find ways to be as disciplined as I used to be. But I associate self-discipline as a coping mechanism and as a sign that I still hate myself. So, it creates quite a bit of turmoil. My view is that its probably best not to build your motivational strategy on a foundation of trauma.