What does it mean to 'respect women'?

[Jacob Morres]

@Emerald just as a thought experiment, you could notice how this could be a projection, take exactly what you said and try to *at least* notice how you yourself *could* be doing that exact thing, *without* deflecting, diverting or rationalizating.  Might be a bit painful or uncomfortable just try to notice that

21 hours ago, Emerald said:

You seem to be under the impression that women are in a more powerful and privileged position to you.

And you seem to feel envious and resentful towards women because of this perception.

And so, you’re creating these posts to further shadow box with the imaginary women in your head. And these imaginary women in your head are implying that you’re less worthy of respect somehow.

I know you’ll probably deflect my observations again and say that I don’t know what I’m talking about. But it’s such a common issue, and it can be spotted quite easily.

All this woman-focused resentment is just a protection mechanism to avoid your own feelings of shame and to self-soothe.

Can you notice that you’re making these posts to try to diminish the power of these imaginary women who live inside my head

You do tend to a ton of boxing on this forum (which you yourself stated)  

[Emerald]

Just now, Jacob Morres said:

@Emerald just as a thought experiment, you could notice how this could be a projection, take exactly what you said and try to *at least* notice how you yourself *could* be doing that exact thing, *without* deflecting, diverting or rationalizating.  Might be a bit painful or uncomfortable just try to notice that

You do tend to a ton of boxing on this forum (which you yourself stated)  

Sometimes you can really just observe common patterns in people. It isn’t always a projection. And calling a spade a spade is valuable.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck… it’s probably a duck.

And it can be of great benefit to simply be frank and straightforward about it, instead of hedging and tiptoeing around things… especially on this forum.

That’s why I come here to practice more severe compassion. It’s the perfect environment for frank teachings because that’s the way Leo has cultivated his audience. 

Also the reason why I know about this pattern is because I’m human and have had similar types of defensiveness in other situations. Collective scapegoating and judgment is a very common thing for people to do to cover their own vulnerabilities.

So, when you acknowledge it in yourself and then see it in others, it’s pretty obvious.

Plus, there’s a huge epidemic of men who are caught up in unconscious viewpoints that are harmful to both themselves and women.

And so, when I see someone who is caught up in resentment towards women, I seek to break them out of unhelpful mental binds that diminish their power.

[Gesundheit2]

Decency and respect are two different things. Unlike decency, you can't force respect, because it is an involuntary reflex and an innate experience that has emotions. Feminists and hippies are so confused about this. They can be decent all they want, but that will not express any respect. Giving away your power is what it means to respect someone. A leader is respected because people give away their power to him. A fool is not respected because people don't take him seriously.

[Emerald]

25 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

Decency and respect are two different things. Unlike decency, you can't force respect, because it is an involuntary reflex and an innate experience that has emotions. Feminists and hippies are so confused about this. They can be decent all they want, but that will not express any respect. Giving away your power is what it means to respect someone. A leader is respected because people give away their power to him. A fool is not respected because people don't take him seriously.

So, the way you’re defining respect is someone giving up power to someone else?

The issue here is that it would be a bad idea to respect anyone in that case… because it disconnects you from your own personal sovereignty and capacity for self-governance.

This is why the world is filled with sycophantic people who are always looking outside themselves for perfect leaders to tell them what to do.

But no human being is a perfect leader.
That’s why it’s unwise to give up power to that person. 

But you can surrender to causes and forces that are greater than yourself. And you can play a role within the greater system.

[mr_engineer]

11 hours ago, Emerald said:

My answer is that respect should be given unconditionally to everyone.

That doesn’t mean trusting everyone of course. Not everyone has trustworthy character.

But to respect everyone recognizes fundamentally at all beings are unshakably valid and are part of the infinite tapestry of unconditional love… regardless of their shortcomings.

After thinking about this answer for a while, I agree with you. In theory. 

Having said that, in practice, to implement this principle, there comes one condition to be respectable - integrity. If you have integrity, no matter who you are, no matter what your identity is, you unconditionally deserve respect. But, if you lack integrity, you will lose it. This is how it tends to work in the real world, in my experience. 

Technically, in theory, it is unconditional. But, practically, integrity is what it takes to earn it. Lack of integrity is the one shortcoming that will make it so you lose everyone's respect, without exception. If you have other shortcomings, you will only lose the respect of biased people. But, lack of integrity will lose you the respect of unbiased people too. 

'Respect', the way I'm defining it, is a validation/acknowledgement of your identity, of who you are. In theory, you deserve it, no matter who you are. Because, in theory, we assume that your 'identity' is well-defined. But, in practice, a lack of integrity tends to disrupt this definition of who you are. When you break your word, when you say one thing and do something else. That's why it loses you respect. 

Edited February 9, 2023 by mr_engineer

[Roy]

As I grow older, honestly I'm finding I respect people less and less. What people really mean when they say "treat everyone with respect" is; "be nice to people you don't know so you don't get off on the wrong foot". Just don't be a needless jerk, pretty simple.

Respect from my point of view has to be earned. When I meet someone I don't know, it starts out at a neutral zero. Depending on how they behave, treat others, and as they reveal their values I will either start to respect them, or lack respect for them.

My life has gone a lot better over the past 3 years - As I've stopped being as nice, started setting harder boundaries, and became more polarizing in my beliefs and attitudes. I've noticed people are starting to respect me a LOT more.

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, mr_engineer said:

After thinking about this answer for a while, I agree with you. In theory. 

Having said that, in practice, to implement this principle, there comes one condition to be respectable - integrity. If you have integrity, no matter who you are, no matter what your identity is, you unconditionally deserve respect. But, if you lack integrity, you will lose it. This is how it tends to work in the real world, in my experience. 

Technically, in theory, it is unconditional. But, practically, integrity is what it takes to earn it. Lack of integrity is the one shortcoming that will make it so you lose everyone's respect, without exception. If you have other shortcomings, you will only lose the respect of biased people. But, lack of integrity will lose you the respect of unbiased people too. 

'Respect', the way I'm defining it, is a validation/acknowledgement of your identity, of who you are. In theory, you deserve it, no matter who you are. Because, in theory, we assume that your 'identity' is well-defined. But, in practice, a lack of integrity tends to disrupt this definition of who you are. When you break your word, when you say one thing and do something else. That's why it loses you respect. 

These are more in the realm of credibility, trust, and admiration… which are conditional. These are important to be selective about as it helps you discern how to practically orient to each person in your life.

I define respect as the recognition of the inherent sacredness and unshakable validity of all beings… which cannot be lost.

And so, if I cherry-pick who (and what) I show respect to… it automatically brings ME out of integrity.

And that is because integrity is about being in alignment with Truth. And the recognition of Truth and the recognition of unconditional love are one and the same thing.

And with this, we can understand the forces that shape people’s shortcomings and the fundamental fragility of the human experience.

So, I don’t worry too much about what other people do in practice in terms of what they consider deserving or not deserving of respect.

When I hear people talking about how their respect isn’t given freely, I know that that person’s paradigm will cause issues for them, because they will judge others… and that external judgment will make thrm judge themselves more harshly and thenfeel shame and fear losing respect in their own eyes.

And if they have this type of judgment and see certain people as unworthy of respect, then this is coming from their own disconnection from the Truth.  

[aurum]

Fundamentally what I think most people are pointing to when they say “X person doesn’t respect women” is that X person doesn’t see the importance of women. Or more broadly, they don’t see the importance of femininity and the role it plays. They find women and femininity useless outside of some narrow selfish survival metric.

Look at a guy like Andrew Tate as an example. Does he see women as important or valuable? Not at all. Basically, the only value women have for Andrew Tate is that he can have sex with them or exploit them for his business. Perhaps he also believes they could clean his house. Otherwise he basically sees women as useless.

Is it not obvious how this disrespects the gifts of women? Is it not obvious how much a misogynist like Tate is missing out on? How distorted his view of women and femininity as a whole is?

If you cannot make a long list of all the ways that femininity and women are important, you are as delusional as someone who thinks masculinity or men have no value.    

Notice that it’s often SD stage Green people who will say “X person doesn’t respect women” and label them as a misogynist. Most of the backlash to Tate was from Green. That is because Green is promoting not just gender equality but feminine energy.

Here is a good example of what I am talking about:

Notice the reverence Green has for femininity. Notice the respect. It is important, even sacred.

This does not mean that masculinity or femininity are always equally valuable in all situations. Harsher survival conditions do tend to favor masculinity out of necessity. But it’s precisely because masculinity can get so out of hand and unbalanced that we need femininity.   

[Gesundheit2]

3 hours ago, Emerald said:

So, the way you’re defining respect is someone giving up power to someone else?

Not giving up, but giving away. You give away your power to someone that you respect that otherwise you would not. And you take it back when they lose your respect. It's all 100% sovereign.

[mr_engineer]

2 hours ago, Emerald said:

These are more in the realm of credibility, trust, and admiration… which are conditional.

Oh... okay. 

I actually have examples of people who have integrity and are respectable but who are not trustworthy. Or admirable. 

For example, Adolf Hitler. In his anti-semitism, he had integrity. True to his word, he did gas Jews. And, this did earn him the respect of his Nazi party. But, that's not trustworthy. You would not trust a bloodthirsty crazy-man like Adolf Hitler to have any position of power or even be a decent civilian in today's world. And, is that admirable?! Hell no. 

He's sorta respectable simply because he was a world leader, he stayed true to his anti-semitic ideology and he carried it to the ends of the earth. And, he got put into power because of his pro-Germany rhetoric. He also built the autobahns. 

The way I've defined respectability, it has nothing to do with being moral or even being humane. It's just raw power being amassed in one direction. And that happens when you have integrity. 

Edited February 9, 2023 by mr_engineer

[StarStruck]

3 hours ago, Roy said:

As I grow older, honestly I'm finding I respect people less and less. What people really mean when they say "treat everyone with respect" is; "be nice to people you don't know so you don't get off on the wrong foot". Just don't be a needless jerk, pretty simple.

Respect from my point of view has to be earned. When I meet someone I don't know, it starts out at a neutral zero. Depending on how they behave, treat others, and as they reveal their values I will either start to respect them, or lack respect for them.

My life has gone a lot better over the past 3 years - As I've stopped being as nice, started setting harder boundaries, and became more polarizing in my beliefs and attitudes. I've noticed people are starting to respect me a LOT more.

People respect different things so it is kind of weird these words are tossed around like they are some universal values. 

Relationships are based on value exchange and people value different things. 

With some people, acting nice will cause them to disrespect you because they see this as a weakness. Other people see niceness as a value and respect you. 

Popular people already have a bunch of respect from their surrounding so they value other things. They value you being edgy. 

What people value the most is authenticity. People don’t like fake people. So if you are an ass just own it. If you are a saint own it. But don’t pretend otherwise. In the same way we don’t like fake money, we don’t like fake people.  

[Consept]

I think maybe taking out the human perspective with an example might help. Let's take dogs, you would have a respect for the life all dogs, it wouldnt be conditional as in you wouldn't say 'this dog is bad so I don't respect its life'. Even if it is bad you might learn of its history and realise that it's acting out because it had a hard life or it wasn't trained properly. Now that doesn't mean you 'like' every dog or want them around you, certain dogs are even dangerous so you might not go near them or you might need strong boundaries, but either way there's a basic respect for their life. 

When we move to other humans I think because they have more ability to affect us directly, we are more weary of them. Another human has the ability to cause terrible harm to you, we also see ourselves in others. So if someone has a trait that causes us not to respect that person, really we're demonising that trait, including within ourselves. So the stakes are higher as a human, but this is where transcendence comes in and if we can look at it from this perspective it would obvious that every life should be respected, again necessarily liked or admired but respected. 

Edited February 9, 2023 by Consept

[Emerald]

7 hours ago, mr_engineer said:

Oh... okay. 

I actually have examples of people who have integrity and are respectable but who are not trustworthy. Or admirable. 

For example, Adolf Hitler. In his anti-semitism, he had integrity. True to his word, he did gas Jews. And, this did earn him the respect of his Nazi party. But, that's not trustworthy. You would not trust a bloodthirsty crazy-man like Adolf Hitler to have any position of power or even be a decent civilian in today's world. And, is that admirable?! Hell no. 

He's sorta respectable simply because he was a world leader, he stayed true to his anti-semitic ideology and he carried it to the ends of the earth. And, he got put into power because of his pro-Germany rhetoric. He also built the autobahns. 

The way I've defined respectability, it has nothing to do with being moral or even being humane. It's just raw power being amassed in one direction. And that happens when you have integrity. 

I wasn’t saying that someone who is trustworthy is the same as someone who is admirable… or that someone who has integrity is trustworthy. Etc.

These can come together or separate.

I was saying that it’s common that the word respect gets translated as some combo of trustworthiness and admiration.

But that isn’t the way that I define respect for the reasons that I stated above.

[mr_engineer]

@Emerald Your definition of 'respect' sounds very personal to you. Do other people in your life agree with your definition of 'respect'? If not, how do you get along with them? I'd be curious to know that. 

Also, if we assume that your definition of 'respect' is absolutely right, for a second, that it is the 'recognition of the inherent sacredness and unshakable validity of all living beings', it's kinda abstract and generalized. I don't know how people would agree on the correct way to practically embody this definition of it. Because, if this is what 'respect' means, if this is what it takes to correctly embody 'respect', 'disrespect' would not be possible, right? It would not be possible for someone who is 'respectful' towards one living being to be 'disrespectful' towards another living being. Yet, in practice, we see that to be the case. 

It sounds like you're trying to define a 'Respect' with a capital 'R', that doesn't have an opposite. The issue with this, from a practical perspective, is that people disagree on the right way to embody something that's purely abstract. Because the practical reality is relative, not absolute. And, in the relative, practical reality, 'disrespect' is a thing. Which is the problem on our hands here. 

[Consept]

@mr_engineer

I think this just comes down to a definition issue and no one is really wrong here. If you look in the dictionary, the definition for respect has 2 meanings - 

1. a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.

"the director had a lot of respect for Douglas as an actor"

2. due regard for the feelings, wishes, or rights of others.

"young people's lack of respect for their parents"

What I gather what you're talking about is the first definition, in which case of course you don't have to have admiration for everyone automatically. But I'm sure you can agree on definition 2. In which you can have respect for another's rights without necessarily admiring or even liking them as a person. 

If you say I don't respect women that could mean you don't admire or like them for whatever reason, that would be generalising of course but you could still have a respect for their rights. If someone didn't have respect for another's basic rights no doubt that would leave the door open to not worrying about hurting them etc for example when a new group comes into a country they may not be given that basic level of respect and be treated terribly. 

[mr_engineer]

3 minutes ago, Consept said:

I think this just comes down to a definition issue and no one is really wrong here.

I think, for practical considerations, it's very important to agree on what 'respect' means. We don't have the luxury to 'agree to disagree' on this one. It's the basic-level jargon of relationships. 

It's like going to a math-class and saying 'I disagree with the statement 2+2=4'. Fine, you have the right to do that. But, you're not going to get better at math if you do that. 

8 minutes ago, Consept said:

1. a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.

"the director had a lot of respect for Douglas as an actor"

I don't see it as a feeling, I see it as a choice. 

8 minutes ago, Consept said:

2. due regard for the feelings, wishes, or rights of others.

"young people's lack of respect for their parents"

When you say 'regard', what do you mean? Is it an 'acknowledgement of its existence'? Or, does it mean, to consider as important when you set your agenda? 

If it's the first definition of 'regard', I agree with you. Because, the way I've seen 'respect' work, is that you can have 'respect' for your opponents too. You can know them intimately, what they're capable of, what they want. And yet, you will not consider their feelings, wishes or rights as 'important when you set your agenda'. 

Sports are a good example of this. Athletes will respect each other, but not consider the other person's agenda when competing for a world cup. Competitors can 'respect' each other! 

17 minutes ago, Consept said:

What I gather what you're talking about is the first definition, in which case of course you don't have to have admiration for everyone automatically. But I'm sure you can agree on definition 2. In which you can have respect for another's rights without necessarily admiring or even liking them as a person. 

If you say I don't respect women that could mean you don't admire or like them for whatever reason, that would be generalising of course but you could still have a respect for their rights. If someone didn't have respect for another's basic rights no doubt that would leave the door open to not worrying about hurting them etc for example when a new group comes into a country they may not be given that basic level of respect and be treated terribly. 

You're probably using the second definition of 'regard' here. In which case, I don't think I can do that, if it's not reciprocated. This would have to be mutual. 

I'm being asked to be 'trustworthy' or 'reliable' here, aka, to consider their feelings, wishes, rights as important when I set my agenda. And, the way I see it, I shouldn't do that unless it's reciprocated. 

[Consept]

@mr_engineer

In reference to the 2 definitions I gave it's literally copied and pasted from the dictionary, so it can be used both ways, many words can be used in different ways so it's not thevsane as maths.

Edited February 9, 2023 by Consept

[Emerald]

4 hours ago, mr_engineer said:

@Emerald Your definition of 'respect' sounds very personal to you. Do other people in your life agree with your definition of 'respect'? If not, how do you get along with them? I'd be curious to know that. 

Also, if we assume that your definition of 'respect' is absolutely right, for a second, that it is the 'recognition of the inherent sacredness and unshakable validity of all living beings', it's kinda abstract and generalized. I don't know how people would agree on the correct way to practically embody this definition of it. Because, if this is what 'respect' means, if this is what it takes to correctly embody 'respect', 'disrespect' would not be possible, right? It would not be possible for someone who is 'respectful' towards one living being to be 'disrespectful' towards another living being. Yet, in practice, we see that to be the case. 

It sounds like you're trying to define a 'Respect' with a capital 'R', that doesn't have an opposite. The issue with this, from a practical perspective, is that people disagree on the right way to embody something that's purely abstract. Because the practical reality is relative, not absolute. And, in the relative, practical reality, 'disrespect' is a thing. Which is the problem on our hands here. 

I did specify that it’s my way of viewing respect. And that I see it as separate from things like admiration. There are other words to describe those conditional forms of respect. 

I view respect in the same way that people have a respect for nature. There is a natural reverence toward all elements of existence… including humans.

And to answer your question, I get along very well with people in my life (in part) because I do my best to practice unconditional respect. And I do this practically by recognizing the validity of a person’s subjective truth and seeking to understand them, rather than judging them. 

It’s less of a question for me as to whether or not another person is “worthy” of my respect.

I’m showing up respectfully regardless of how anyone else wants to show up because it is one of my values.

And respect in the way that I’m defining it is not contingent upon behaviors or qualities. 

But being respectful is contingent upon certain behaviors. And I think you can tell a lot about how respectful a person is going to be by how unconditionally they give their respect.

[Hardkill]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

I did specify that it’s my way of viewing respect. And that I see it as separate from things like admiration. There are other words to describe those conditional forms of respect. 

I view respect in the same way that people have a respect for nature. There is a natural reverence toward all elements of existence… including humans.

And to answer your question, I get along very well with people in my life (in part) because I do my best to practice unconditional respect. And I do this practically by recognizing the validity of a person’s subjective truth and seeking to understand them, rather than judging them. 

It’s less of a question for me as to whether or not another person is “worthy” of my respect.

I’m showing up respectfully regardless of how anyone else wants to show up because it is one of my values.

And respect in the way that I’m defining it is not contingent upon behaviors or qualities. 

But being respectful is contingent upon certain behaviors. And I think you can tell a lot about how respectful a person is going to be by how unconditionally they give their respect.

Do you think that having casual sex with women is always disrespectful? Do you think it makes women feel like sex objects?

[mr_engineer]

@Emerald Okay, this is really big talk. 

Let's make this even more practical. 

Do you have respect for a mosquito in the moment that it's sucking your blood?! 

If not, if you say 'I'm not there in my ability to offer unconditional respect yet', will you ever get there?