Re: Guest Blog: Feminine Spirituality, by Anita Floris

Hi Liz, thanks for your reflections on this. It has spurred me to want to comment on many things you have brought to light here, of coarse only to get the conversation going as it is such a huge topic.

Just to give my own initial response to the article by Anita first, I felt she did a good job of discussing the qualities of the feminine and how they contrast/complement the masculine path and principle, but overall I was left somewhat disatisfied. Not so much becuase I think that her assessment was wildly inaccurate but rather because I really feel that if we are going to talk about “feminine spirituality” we really need to include and integrate the current feminist debates that surround gender and spirituality. 

I mean, we can talk all we want about the nondual and all the beautiful qualities of the feminine, and that is great, but without addressing current feminist theory and critique, I feel the feminine gets crystalized into ths kind of ideal space that never truly touches the relative world concerns of women. I really feel it is deeply important to integrate these two approaches in a healthier way, as they have been so divided in the past. 

In response to your reaction to Willow, Diane and Sofia's dialogue, I have to be upfront about my own bias and that is that I have spent a lot of time around these women and really love the work they are doing around the feminine and within I-I itself so my bias will likely come through in my own comments on this pod(-: 

In regards to your question/ambivelance about the quote from Anita's article that references Deida.
 I agree that she sounds unsure here, and I would argue because I think she is making a slight pre/trans fallacy; that is, she is confusing stage two (50/50 gender equality) with the nondual standpoint. In my opinion, these two approaches are extremely different both in theory and practice but are often confused as similar by many postmodern assessments on spirituality. The stage two in Deida's scheme is not necessary in order to have a nondual state experience, I agree with you there (see Wilber-Combs Lattice in “Integral Spirituality” which shows we can experience all four states no matter where our stage level development is). 

That said, I would still argue that stabalizing a nondual grounding in our everyday experience and life is more likely to be acheived if we are higher up on our stage structure development, because the higher stages (vertical axis on W-B Lattice) are really at their core only relative world crystalizations of our ever-present state-structures (gross,subtle, causal, nondual on horizontal axis). That is, as we develop stage wise I would argue we also have more access to higher states. Higher stages, as they develop and fill out through all four quadrants, become the relative world expression and interpretations of higher states. 

Does that make sense for you? I don't know how familar everyone is with Wilbers work, especially the W-B lattice which I think is so essential to approaching these issues.

Re: Guest Blog: Feminine Spirituality, by Anita Floris

I feel we're substantially in agreement, here. One of my frustrations has been the lack of true integration of all the feminist thought of the past. It seems like too often, it's simply dismissed as “green” or anti-male and the uncomfortable truths are also thrown out with the bathwater. It sounds like you are actually more in a position to talk abut the nitt-gritty of this, and I'm excited to hear more of what you have to say. I'm looking to learn more, and you seem quite capable of bring more light to this.

As to the video, it's just not that good. I don't think it necessarily reflects on these women's full body of work at all. I know that Diane's other videos have been much more useful to me. I just don'tthink this was one of those sessions that “clicked.” They could have found something better to spotlight. It seems like an afterthought, with no truly coherent message.

As to Ms. Floris, I don't think it'/s a pre-trans error, but a category error.  I don't see where she's saying that the 50/50 stage is equivalent to the non-dual, just that she thinks it's necessary. Non-dual, is, of course, always-already present, and not dependent on one's evolutionary stage, hence the category error. Though of course, as has been said before, it's an accident that is made more likely to happen the further up the ladder you go.

Liz

Re: Guest Blog: Feminine Spirituality, by Anita Floris

Hi Liz,
I agree with you that Anita's position is not a direct pre/trans fallacy and I may have suggested that too strongly. But I did say a slight pre/trans fallacy because she says,
“The 50-50 stage might feel closer to the nondual then bringing the differences back in.”


I picked up in this statement a bit of the postmodern confusion around a kind of aversion to differences, especially gender wise. Both Wilber and developmental theorist Carol Gilligan make the point that “integrative stages”/post-post conventional stages (that is, where the masculine and feminine become flexible and integrated into the self) do not look like a kind of neutralized androgeny (which is often what it is interpreted as by that stage 2 perspective). In fact the masculine or feminine can become much more pronounced in the individual in a kind of “uneven” way. We can have an inclination towards expressing one more than the other, but the difference is that we are flexible in our embodiment and not stuck to dualistic gender definitions as is the case at conventional stage 1.


I look forward to hearing more of your insights on this, you have a sharp eye for all of this.

Re: Guest Blog: Feminine Spirituality, by Anita Floris

While I agree that there is much interesting material in Anita Floris’ article, I agree with Vanessa .. and potently, because this is where my own work is situated… that I strongly feel that discussion of the ‘feminine’ should not be divorced from feminist theory. In grappling with gender & gender issues we actually don’t need to reinvent the wheel. There is at least 30 years worth of dicusssion and debate over these issues within feminist theory; the fact that we may not agree with their outcomes, or the stage that feminism finds itself shouldn’t mean that we abandon the discourse altogether.

I still feel an itch around the term “the feminine” and the way it ‘sticks’ to women. I get the impression (perhaps falsely) from Anita’s article that she is suggesting that ‘the feminine’ path of women should be simply be seen, acknowledged and embraced. I don’t think it is so simple.

Yes women have had a tendency toward the ‘feminine’ path (and it has been marked with all of the negatives of the binary split), but why? because of their biology? culture? because we’ve been limited to it? (I think a mix of all of these).
And then, of course, it must be acknowledged as well, that not all women have that tendency.

Glad to have you along for the conversational ride!

Re: Guest Blog: Feminine Spirituality, by Anita Floris

Hey Sarah, I felt the desire to dive in on your concerns/inquiry on the use of the term “the feminine” as I know it is something that has come up in our discussions together a few times.
I haven't really thought this out too much but I'm going to dive in on an impulse and feel free to jump in and fight with me(-:

I guess what first came up for me was, yes, I think all of those things you mentioned (i.e., biology, culture, limited access etc) have shaped women's inclination towards what we might term a more “feminine” path. And yes, I agree with you that the term feminine is still very linked to women, even within the I-I definitions.

Part of me really wonders though, whether at this point in our evolutionary history such a strong link between the feminine and women is really unavoidable. I mean, yes, at the higher third tier levels, masculine and feminine really are not two and are ultimately not experienced as such nor conflated with men and women. But seeing that the masculine and feminine expressions themselves have gross,subtle and causal expressions, we aren't just dealing with nondual definitions,

Why I think this is so important is because the feminine as it is expressed at the gross levels of embodiment and the feminine as it manifests at the subtle levels of mind are traditionally what have not been properly acknowledged and seen in a world that has preferenced masculine modes of embodiment and thinking. And typically it is women who have embodied these gross and subtle feminine expressions, and it is women that haven't had a full voice in the world to express the feminine side of the gross and subtle domains. Now of coarse not all women preference the feminine modes of expressing (I happen to be one of them(-:), but I would argue that especially up to this point in our evolution it is largely women who do hold a lot of the important keys into better understanding these feminine ways of relating, due to the stronghold of both biology and culture.

I think as we develop as a culture into second and third tier waves these kinds of distinctions will become less and less relevant and the feminine and masculine will become less and less conflated with men and women. Because obviously the causal and nondual territory is really another playing feild. But until we carve out those grooves in our collective consciousness I would argue there are some good reasons to link the feminine with women. At is point in our historical trajectory women tend to carry more insight into those feminine expressions at the gross and subtle levels and these really need to be better articulated and brought out so as to better integrate them into our strongly masculine value based society. This is where I think feminism can offer so much to our integral approaches to gender and spirituality.

And of coarse, ideally, we would be able to always hold the nondual recognition of radical freedom and fullness beyond gender identifications in the relative world as we simultaneously give presence and privelage to the relative experiences of the feminine as it is embodied through women. This isn't to exclude men, nor to say that men can't offer to our inquiry into the feminine, it is only to acknowledge that at this point in our evolution women really need to be given their own voice on this as well…something which I think you would agree with.   

 

Re: Guest Blog: Feminine Spirituality, by Anita Floris

Ahhhh…I can already feel myself relaxing into this space. You two are so refreshing to my old feminist soul! It is rare indeed to speak with women as young as 23 and not feel the need to hold back the information that, no, they have not come that long a way, baby. So often, I have to just tell myself that they will have to learn by experience, and that anything I say will be rejected.

Ok, that taken care of, I find myself in such substantial agreement that I'm a bit at a loss for what to say. I guess all I would add is that my experience of the “feminine” has been that yes, it has been circumstantial in many respects, and I think you're right that the lines between “masculine” and “feminine” –so sharply drawn they can cut us–will largely fall away when we all have true choices.

For instance, had I chosen not to have children, I am certain my feminine would not be so highly developed. Not because children change one so much (and they do) but because of the strategies for survival that one has to have in order to continue to grow. Meditation is what comes to mind. I will never, as long as I have children, be able to sit for an hour and stare at the wall. I am pretty much incapable of sitting still for even 15 minutes. However, many is the time that I have been doing dishes or scrubbing a tub and had the kinds of experiences I hear people talk about from meditating. I didn't even know I was meditating until I got into Wilber and found out more about it, only a few years ago. I was simply trying to be more aware and improve my life. I'm certain that if men were forced into such “feminine” spaces, they would have very similar results.

Liz

Re: Guest Blog: Feminine Spirituality, by Anita Floris

Liz, Vanessa,

For the most part I agree with you both.

yes ‘the feminine’ in the west has (and is) been repressed and degraded .. and we dont want to skip over it prematurely (because we simply can’t) into some post-gendered place… we are all going to have to step back and scoop it up before we move along, but..

I think my itch around ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’ might be, in part, that we don’t do particularly much in the way of acknowledging how western our perspective of these things are.. we let these terms fall as a blanket over our ideas of men and women.

(Now, I’m not going to get all relativist on you.. but)

it seems to me that if we look at things more closely there are some fairly significant cultural differences arise around the concepts of masculine & feminine .. while there are also (sure to be) unifying threads or median points of agreement.

I guess I’d like to see some more acknowledgedment of and work around this also.

Re: Guest Blog: Feminine Spirituality, by Anita Floris

Hi Sarah,

I see what you are getting at. I too agree that the feminine and masculine are definitely nuanced here when we start looking into cultural definitions… and our perspective is going to be undoubtably western in its slant. I myself don' t feel that I am an expert in other cultural definitions but if you would like to bring them in here I'd love to see more of your thinking around this.

There is only one thing for me that is immediately coming to mind. I guess I”m thinking about how other cultures may give equal weight or even privelege to the feminine within their spiritual traditions– say Tibetan Buddhism, Hinduism or Taoism for example– but I would still argue that it is largely an equal weight only given in the causal/nondual realms, where the feminine is seen as pretty much entirely unequated with women. And in many of those cultures where the causal/nondual feminine is worshipped, there is often still oppression of women. It seems in the Eastern traditions “the feminine” and “women” often falls on the other side of our western tendency of conflation, into a complete separation.  I think this can still speak to how the gross feminine manifestation and the subtle feminine expressions, as they arise through women, have seen at least suppression if not oppression through most patriarchal cultures, which encompasses a large part of the planet.

That said, again, I don't feel this is my area of expertise, do you have any particular examples that you feel would be important to bring into this discussion?? I'd like to tease out your concern here if you are willing. 

Re: Guest Blog: Feminine Spirituality, by Anita Floris

Oh, and I wanted to add one more thing that came up for me.
I guess I feel that a bit of the 'itch' for me, as far as concerning the I-I definitions of “the feminine”, isn't so much the western bias, but ironically, for me, it is the importation of the Eastern term and definition of “the feminine” and how it often easily blankets over the Western definitions (i.e. the feminist movement).

Perhaps there is a Western bias in our interpretation of the Eastern term, and we could talk about that to, but I actually feel that the way we sometimes simplistically privilege the Eastern definitions is what can make it hard to apply them to our specific Western setting, with its own unique historical developments and challenges.
This all ties in with my critique of Anita Floris' article, again a kind of blanketing of the Eastern definitions which hides the unique situation of the term “feminine” in the West, as well as women in the west.

Re: Guest Blog: Feminine Spirituality, by Anita Floris

Hi Vanessa (and everyone else out there in this pod land)
I've been meaning to reply to this thread for .. well, months. Something I read today prompted me to pipe back up. I was reading a review the Rita Gross (feminist buddhist scholar) book Soaring and Settling. The reviewer takes issue with her analysis of Vajrayana's use of the concepts of feminine and masculine principles : “when she [Gross] says there's no relationship implied between the qualities of the “feminine principle” and the nature of women, I think she's unrealistic. If not, then what does it mean to attribute those qualities to the feminine? Why not call it the x principle or the orange principle or some descriptor that has relevance to what is described?”
And that I think is an excellent point (as it is the one I've been trying to make. ha ha!).
In a post-conventional sense why are we calling things feminine?
If in a post conventional sense we understand that the feminine is limited to or reflective or constitutive of woman why limit it to a name that is directly linked to our conventional understanding of woman?
Personally once we move out into post and post-post conventional thinking & discussion I think we should shuck off the term feminine (which, for me at least resonates too strongly with conventional definition) and agree to use the terms communal or agape or some other agreed terms.
What do you think?

Re: Guest Blog: Feminine Spirituality, by Anita Floris

Hi Sarah,
I think you've got some important thoughts here, worth contemplating more seriously…

I do totally understand your reservations around using a term–feminine–that is so distinctly defined within a conventional context, and in some way always carries that baggage. I suppose for myself, I am somewhat hesitant to fully shruck off that baggage, even when we are talking about post-post conventional consciousness. I suppose it is in part because I think that history and baggage does always travel with us, no matter what our level of consciousness, although, of coarse, our identification with it greatly changes/transforms.

I was just reading a great article by Elizabeth Debold today from a back issue of WIE entitled: “Where are all the Women?:Part III” the link is http://www.wie.org/j32/women.asp
I think you would really enjoy it, if you haven't already read it, as she is speaking directly to the questions you are putting forth here. She especially challenges us to go beyond “feminine” and “masculine” descriptors in the future, which she feels only solidify preconventional/conventional binaries. It is beautifully written and well researched. I was definitely humbled by her knowledge in the subject and her courageously provocative writing style.

I agree with Debold in many essential ways–totally! But there are points where I still remain ambivelant about…questioning…

I appreciate the discussion. And I definitely don't have the answers(-:

Re: Guest Blog: Feminine Spirituality, by Anita Floris

Hi Sarah,
I think you've got some important thoughts here, worth contemplating more seriously…

I do totally understand your reservations around using a term–feminine–that is so distinctly defined within a conventional context, and in some way always carries that baggage. I suppose for myself, I am somewhat hesitant to fully shruck off that baggage, even when we are talking about post-post conventional consciousness. I suppose it is in part because I think that history and baggage does always travel with us, no matter what our level of consciousness, although, of coarse, our identification with it greatly changes/transforms.

I was just reading a great article by Elizabeth Debold today from a back issue of WIE entitled: “Where are all the Women?:Part III” the link is http://www.wie.org/j32/women.asp
I think you would really enjoy it, if you haven't already read it, as she is speaking directly to the questions you are putting forth here. She especially challenges us to go beyond “feminine” and “masculine” descriptors in the future, which she feels only solidify preconventional/conventional binaries. It is beautifully written and well researched. I was definitely humbled by her knowledge in the subject and her courageously provocative writing style.

I agree with Debold in many essential ways–totally! But there are points where I still remain ambivelant about…questioning…

I appreciate the discussion. And I definitely don't have the answers(-:

Re: Guest Blog: Feminine Spirituality, by Anita Floris

Hi Vanessa,

Yes I've read Debold's article. It's great. I particularly draw on Harvard based girls development research in my thesis.

I was just looking over a previous thread on Masculine and Feminine as words
and thought that it would help (me) to break this down further.

To start - a dictionary definition: “feminine” -
1 of or characteristic of women
2 having qualities associated with women
3 womanly, effeminate

When we talk about ” the feminine”
(and equally this could / should be broken down for the “masculine”)
are we talking about :
a. a type of behaviour ( which women are believed to embody, ie. conventional role that they are enculturated into)
b. a mode of relating to other subject / objects
b. a form of energy

While I believe that we agree (at very least you & I, Vanessa ; ) that “the feminine” ( as any or all of the above definitions) has been historically been degraded, dismissed and denied and needs to be reclaimed and reintegrated, I am still totally tramping about, stuck in the mud of these questions :

“Where does the feminine arise from and what relates it to woman?”
and  then, “what level of “the feminine” are we talking about?”

I  believe that we would also agree that development for women is about moving beyond the conventional “feminine” mode (role) of being.
In a post conventional sense woman is not the “feminine ” (defn a.)
but she may still privilege b. or c. as modes of being
[ and at post-conv the process of exploration and re-integration of b & c could be part of an important developmental process for men]

In post conventional these modes (b & c) are no longer inherently “characteristic of women” (unless we believe that they arise particular to female biology - which I think is a part but certainly not all of the “feminine” mix)

What do you think?

Re: Guest Blog: Feminine Spirituality, by Anita Floris

Great questions Sarah, I appreciate your breakdown of definitions here.
Overall, yes, I think we are in large part agreement. I too think that b and c are aspects of the “Feminine” that can be explored by both men and women in post-conventional development. And I think we both agree that b and c “feminine' are not exclusive to women.

I also really appreciate the two questions you have posed out to the zaadzsphere that you yourself are muddling with, I'll take some time to sit with them as I think they are important to seriously contemplate and I don't want to attempt to respond to them too flippantly(-:

One thing that did come up for me while reading your post was an itch around whether (b) and (c) (but specifically b) were completely unexclusive to women. I honestly  flat out don't know, but I'm curious to explore it further.

I suppose it made me think about an essay I was reading just last night entitled: “On Luce Irigaray's Phenomenology of Intersubjectivity: Between the Feminine Body and Its Other” by Sara Heinamaa. It seems Irigaray–judging from the small amount I've read– is really a defender of (b) in your scheme (mode of relating to other subjects/objects) as a domain that is marked inherently by sexual difference. (i.e.,  the female body as a physical biological reality inherently effects the nature of a woman's felt experience in relation to other selves and other objects)

For Irigaray, the phenomenological experience of woman's relationship to “other”, is and always will be distinctly unique from mens. She uses a great example of how traditional phenomenological philosophy has been made up of men who have pioneered a philosphy in the realm of intersubjectivity based on the visual perception of the other. The other is always felt as outside of me, but I know they exist becasue I visually percieve them. Irigaray then compares this to the experience of a pregnant woman who does not see her baby but knows that the “other” exists through felt sensations of being. She argues that this radically shifts the grounds for which intersubjective knowing and experience are built. My sense of what she is arguing is that in some ways, female and male embodied reality inherently effects every other domain of phenomenological inquiry–from intersubjective, to aesthetic to spiritual experience.

Now I don't necessarily agree with all Irigaray puts forth in her philosophy of gender/sex and phenomenological experience, as I do believe at least a great degree of these experiential binaries can break down and integrate at higher post-conventional modes of relating and being. But her vehement insistence of retaining the sexuate binary for certain purposes has continued to intrigue me, and I am still questioning whether it is possible for men and women to ever really be at a place where they “equally access” masculine and feminine modes of being at the intersubjective and interobjective level (again, (b) in your scheme)

Again, I don't know.
Thanks for being willing to dance with me in this wide space of unknowing(-:

Re: Guest Blog: Feminine Spirituality, by Anita Floris

Yes, I love Irigaray's work and think she is a fundamentally important and insightful feminist philosopher.
But I tend to diasgree with her on her fundamental tenet of sexual difference.
She, as I understand her, believes that there is an irreducible difference between men and women.
While I would accept that if it where couched in terms of “at present” - ie. that current conditions produce  two (or, at least broadly two) different ways of experiencing being in the world, as a man or a woman - I do not accept that as universally so..
Examining sex/gender  from a nondual philosophical perspective the idea of there being two fundamentally and universally different sexes seems untenable to me.
There seems to me to be a significant unresolved tension in her work where on one hand she advocates for moving beyond dualism and binaries, and yet she insists on sexual difference. Where in being marked by interconnectivity, co-dependent arising and flux could  a fundamental sexual difference reside?

Re: Guest Blog: Feminine Spirituality, by Anita Floris

Yes, I agree with your point: from a nondual perspective retaining a strict sexuate binary does seem untenable.  I also think the clause you've included is essential; that is, that “at present” there is fundamental differences that have to be acknowledged, included, respected etc. I suppose it is my struggle with running into “spiritual camp individuals” who want to wipe out the sex/gender divide too early that always brings me back to wanting to emphasize work like Irigaray's. But I know neither you nor I take that stance, and that the wiping out of feminism too early is actually both our main concern with certain “nondual” approaches.

I am also thinking in regards to Irigaray that in some ways it seems even the “at present” clause, doesn't really protect her from criticism from the queer, transexual and intersexual movements. It seems that not only gender but sex is becoming increasingly recognized as a spectrum of many possibilities, which really challenges her work.

Thanks for your clarifying insights here. So much to contemplate! I am continually feeling humbled by all the knowledge out there. Especially in regards to really providing an integral framework for the many diverse strains of feminist thought, something that really hasn't been done in a deeply articulated and scholarly way. I look forward to the grooves you will carve out with your work!

Re: Guest Blog: Feminine Spirituality, by Anita Floris

Just popping in to let you know I'm rather obviously not contributing, but to also say that I have a month off from work and hope to more deeply ponder what's being discussed, and I am enjoying thinking about these perspectives.

Liz