Emerald

@Evoke similar to what Aurum said, intimate relationships and spirituality go hand in hand. They are necessary for deep exploration into another person. But spirituality makes you more aware. And some of the realities you notice in pick-up situations might put a bad taste in your mouth. Many women who are easy to pick up and sleep with on the first meeting are often that way because of trauma or emotional turmoil. And many men who get in involved with pick-up do so to prove their worth to themselves by getting a woman to validate their existence via sex. So, you may in deepening your awareness pick up on the deep pain underneath the whole dynamic.

I didn’t get this perspective from Spiral Dynamics. I heard about SD years after I happened upon this feminine/masculine perspective and had many insights about it. And it is an accurate name to call it, as the roots of it is archetypal and across many cultures. But Spiral Dynamics also tracks along with these perspectives and insights... but it approaches from a different vantage point. That’s why I can look to SD with a fair amount of certainty that it’s a legitimate system. It fits. But Yellow isn’t in resistance to Green. It sees and honors Green’s place within the spiral. A person in Yellow, would not be discouraging Feminism or other Green movements because they would see that that’s the direction society’s HAS TO go in to transcend from the status quo of Orange. I can tell that you are mostly in Orange as you really don’t understand the Green perspective and specifically seek to decry it and discourage it... perhaps believing we can skip directly from Orange to Yellow. But this cannot happen. Society has to fully integrate Green. But most people tend to overestimate their level on the Spiral by two stages. So, it would be very normal for someone in Stage Orange to believe they’re criticizing Stage Green from the top as opposed to criticizing it from the bottom.

You seem to have no idea about what “equality of outcome” actually means. To argue for “equality of outcome” in this instance means to argue for all YouTubers to make the same amount of money. And you’ve yet to show me a person who’s making that argument. If Feminists are making this “equality of outcome” argument all over the place, then you should have no issue screen-shotting me some evidence that I don’t have to watch a bunch of anti-feminist videos to find.

It has nothing to do with personal preference. It simply is the shift that society is going through and has been for over a century. You can notice it if you let yourself see. The whole world is moving towards integrating Femininity. It has been repressed in the collective for thousands of years. We are working toward an integration of Divine Feminine and Divine Masculine coming together in the Sacred Marriage. And a dethroning of the Shadow Masculine from the power it has wielded over Mother Earth. But Stage Green is just the first step towards integration. Most in Stage Green don’t yet see the bigger picture even as they are instrumental within the unfolding of this process. The level of Feminine integration gets far deeper in Yellow and Turquoise in the individual and the collective as an extension. But no Divine Feminine can exist in Red or Blue and only very little Divine Feminine can exist in Orange. So, until Green emerged, the Feminine has been submerged. And the Goddess has barely begun to peek her head above the surface of collective consciousness. Individuality is important... especially when coming out of Blue and transitioning to Orange. This is probably why you’re very focused on that. But there’s more development to be had beyond that transition. The problem with focusing ONLY on individually, is that you miss the truths of the collective perspective. You miss the forest for the trees. We’d be wise to have no qualms with looking at either perspective (individuality and collectivism). They don’t invalidate one another. They form a Sacred Marriage of their own. So, we need a healthy integration between the feminine and masculine. But this is not possible unless we begin seeing that masculine principled qualities like individuality are not superior to feminine principled traits like collectivism. They are two sides to the same coin. Henceforth, and for the past several millennia, we’ve lived in societies that have regarded the masculine principle as superior and have repressed the feminine principle. This Yang over Yin patriarchal orientation has today led us into corruption and gross inequalities and (as a result) chaos and social decay in our communities. This is especially true as we’ve developed our masculine technology in such a way that it threatens to overpower the feminine... aka Mother Nature.

Since you were ‘unable’ find her tweet and also unable to supply me any first-hand sources of Feminists arguing for equality of outcome , here is Lilly’s tweet... Lilly was commenting on how things were pretty even a few years ago and now all the top earners are male. And she was concerned that “the digital space would repeat the mistakes of ancient industries.” So, as is in keeping with the Green worldview, she sees the disparity in income as a symptom of corruptions within Youtube as a system. She never argued that all YouTubers should have equality of outcome and make the same amount of money. Stop straw manning.

The Feminine Principle is an archetype of femininity that can be found in similar symbols and associations throughout a variety of cultures and eras. Even the word Feminism has a touch of this wisdom. It isn’t called “womanism” because it isn’t all about women. It also has to do with allowing men to connect to their feminine side. Once you experience Divine Feminine, you will understand that each wave of Feminism that has been and currently is is all about leading society into a space where the deep Feminine can become integrated and the reverence for Mother Nature can be once again recognized and honored by humanity. And this is true even as Feminists and anti-Feminists alike are in the process of unfolding it.

Please do.

ACTUALLY, she has an infinite amount of penises... ya dummy.

There are constructions that exist for sure. Gender norms are certainly constructs. And yes, Yin and Yang are two sides to the same coin... each intonation of either energy containing a universe of both Yin and Yang in them. So, if you went into the Yang side of a Yin/Yang symbol, you’d find an entire universe full of Yin and Yang signs as these two energies are never separate. In that more absolute regard, everyone and everything is infinitely Yin and infinitely Yang. But from the human-centric perspective, you have social construct and you have the relative expression of Yin and Yang which are very different from one another. And these are important to parse. Just like how ideas of up/down and big/small are only relevant from the relative human perspective. There is nothing inherently big or small just in the same way that nothing is inherently more Yin or Yang in the absolute sense. But it doesn’t mean that these more human-centric perspectives aren’t important perspectives to look from. If we ignored the observable difference between up and down, as human beings and said “Up and down is just a construct. There is no true up and down.” we run the risk of falling off a cliff. So, even though Yin and Yang in people is infinite on the absolute level. From the relative level, men tend to display more Yang traits and women more Yin traits as their natural set-point. It’s kind of like how the number 2 and 2 million are both equally close to infinitely. From the infinite perspective, these numbers might as well be the same. But on the relative perspective, there are real differences between those numbers.

Have you seen Leo’s new video? I personally have not. But there is nothing in @Leo Gura‘s viewpoints that he’s shared hence-forth that would make me think he shares your view on this.

It’s an observable pattern. Usually, when people are invested in the idea that there are no natural differences between men and women, they are doing so for deep seated personal/emotional reasons. For example, plenty of women (especially in earlier waves of Feminism) would deny any differences between men and women because they associated femininity with repressive gender norms and their own oppression. And this person, understandably may come into resistance to their own femininity and anything associated with it. For example, that person may come into resistance to motherhood because of its association with oppressive gender norms... even if that person would otherwise want children. Or one that was common in my childhood was for little girls to hate the color pink (which is only culturally seen as feminine... and is not inherently feminine). And it never reflected their actual feelings about the color pink itself. There was just a resistance to anything associated with femininity because of femininity’s association with weakness/lameness within the culture. And there are many Shadow-based reasons for a person to come into resistance to recognizing natural differences that generally exist between men and women.

Yes, repression of the opposite energy can and does happen when someone conforms to gender norms. But resistance to gender norms can also do the same thing. True freedom from gender norms can’t be found in conforming to nor rebelling from them... as the reference point for either reaction is the gender norm. So, a conformist says, “What do the gender norms say?” And then they follow them. A rebel says, “What do the gender norms say?” And then they do the opposite to what they say. A person with an accurate and integrated view of polarity says “What do I feel is right in this situation?” And they don’t even consider gender roles. If a person is committed to the notion of gender neutrality, they can repress and avoid awareness of their primary energy out of a sense of resistance to gender roles. And to not notice general differences in gender/sex is a symptom of resistance to gender roles.

This happens to men sometimes. It’s not anything you did or didn’t do. I know those questions can come up when it happens, but it very likely doesn’t have to do with you.

You can’t learn this from courses and books. You have to have direct experience of your signature to know. Once you experience it, you’ll see what’s in you.

Everyone has a unique Yin/Yang signature underneath all conditioning. Everyone has both of these energies. But if you put a group of 1000 men together, their collective signature will be mostly Yang with a little bit of Yin. The same is true in reverse for women. So, while gender norms and conditioning are socially constructed, the Yin/Yang signature is not. And if someone is conforming to gender norms, they will suppress their natural Yin/Yang signature. BUT likewise, if someone is rebelling against gender norms and has resistance to anything socially constructed around gender... they will also suppress their natural Yin/Yang signature. This is the trap I fell into when I was believing all of gender/sex was socially constructed. And this is the trap you’re falling into. You may try to make yourself 50/50... when your ratio is probably more to one side or the other.

You’re claiming that differences in gender are socially constructed. So, perhaps you believe that the Tao has nothing to do with innate qualities within gender and sex. But I can tell you that it very much does. Either that, or you’re holding contradictory viewpoints.

Link the story to me then, where Lilly Singh is arguing for equality of outcome... where she wants all YouTubers to make the same amount of money.

Who in your life has been telling you that you have to follow these norms? Keep in mind that you’re talking to a person who diverges from gender norms quite regularly. But I used to believe the same thing as you do when I was a teenager. And this led me to repress my feminine side. Then, I had my awakenings at 20, and in my subtlety of awareness, I recognized an energy I could only describe as feminine. And it was in the trees and plants... and in me too. And I recognized that, in my views that gender was purely a social construct, that I had constricted my awareness of so much of myself as so much of me was feminine that I’d forgotten about. That which is gender-neutral within a patriarchal society (like ours) will always be masculine. So, to be gender-neutral is truly to embody the masculine and banish the feminine. Most people denying differences in gender don’t realize that they’re doing that. But it is what happens.

We’re you raised in a situation where you were required to adhere to strict gender norms? I can notice a general difference between women and men... but also not feel required to adhere to gender norms. There is a distinction between gender/sex and gender norms. Gender norms are rules around how you should/shouldn’t act. You don’t have to follow any of those rules at all... even if you let yourself notice the general differences.

I didn’t say that’s why you specifically think that. It’s just the most common reason why people deny general differences between men and women. Freedom from gender roles could be your motive for cognitive dissonance around this issue. It’s another common one. You feel like even noticing any distinction between men and women will trap you in a gender role. It won’t. But you fear that. The more interesting question is why you feel that acknowledging general differences will trap you. Were you raised in a really repressive religious background?

And we’re wired 96% the same as Chimpanzees DNA-wise. Even a percentage of difference can account for many natural divergences.

For one, there are exceptions to this rule. So, people acknowledge the existence of the LGBT community and other non-gender conforming people and extrapolate that this invalidates the general differences between men and women. Or they fear that acknowledging the generalities will somehow invalidate non-gender conforming people. So, that’s one. Or a person can believe that human beings were born as a Tabula Rasa and that a person’s personality is 100% shaped by external forces. This is someone with a worldview that skews far more towards nurture in the “nature vs nurture” argument. But ultimately, why you see most people having resistance to acknowledging general differences between men and women... is because they subconsciously believe masculinity is superior to femininity. So, to acknowledge that men and women are different and that men are inherently more masculine as a general rule is to acknowledge that women are inferior in their deep-down assessment as they see masculinity as better and femininity as worse. And usually men and women in this mindset are Feminists of some kind... dealing with their misogynistic shadow. The antidote to this is to genuinely appreciate the feminine perspective.

The way I define religion is this... An intellectual framework for understanding how reality works or an aspect of reality works that may or may not be reflective of the underlying reality. Everyone has a religion. Religions may or may not be spiritual. Most people are unconscious of the full extent of their religion because most people take their religion for granted. They are like fish in water. So, the answer is yes... gender identity can be part of someone’s religion. But the answer is no, in the sense that it’s no more or less a religion than 99% of the beliefs human beings hold. Edit: Also, underneath the “religion” projected onto gender/sex in the form of gender norms, there is real difference. There are exceptions to the rule. But in 80%+ of people, you’re going to find that there are real biological and energetic differences between men and women.

So, do you consume animal products in the same way that indigenous people did? And do you think Vegans have a worse relationship to animals than those who get their meat and dairy products sourced from factory farms? And also, if you don’t get your meat and dairy the way indigenous people did, what makes you err on the side of participating in factory farming?

That isn’t arguing for equality of outcome. She’s NOT arguing that all YouTubers should make the same amount of money. That’s noticing an inequality in a particular industry, and extrapolating that there may be deeper prejudices in society or within Youtube as a company (perhaps with its algorithm) causing that inequality. She’s expecting that, if everything in the system of society or YouTube as a company lacks corruption and runs fairly, that you wouldn’t have such an extreme disparity in gender of the top earning YouTubers. And therefore, if there is a disparity, then this must be an indication of bigger issues within the system in question. She’s not arguing that all YouTubers should make the same amount of money. And she isn’t saying that we need to take money away from the top earning male YouTubers and give it to women. And she’s not arguing that YouTube or the government need to go in and give women extra money to make it so that women are making just as much. She’s just pointing out a disparity and attributing it to deeper issues in the system. That’s what stage Green is about.