Defining Masculine and Feminine

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

Sure thing!  The book Integral Spirituality makes clearer the masculine and feminine types (from p. 12):

“Male logic, or a man's voice, tends to be based on terms of autonomy, justice, and rights; whereas a woman's logic or voice tends to be based on terms of relationship, care, and responsibility.  Men tend toward individualism, women tend toward relationship.  One of [Carol] Gilligan's favorite stories:  A little boy and girl are playing.   The boy says, “Let's play pirates!” The girl says, “Let's play like we live next door to each other.”  Boy: “No, I want to play pirates!” “Okay you play the pirate who lives next door.”

Little boys don't like girls around when they are playing games like baseball, because the two voices clash badly, and often hilariously.  Some boys are playing baseball, a kid takes his third strike and is out, so he starts to cry.  The other boys stand unmoved until the kid stops crying; after all, a rule is a rule, and the rule s: three strikes and you're out.  Gilligan points out that if a girl is around, she will usually say, “Ah, come on, give him another try!”  The girl sees him crying and wants help, wants to connect, wants to heal.  This, however, drives the boys nuts, who are doing this game as an initiation into the world of rules and male logic.  Gilligan says that the boys will therefore hurt feelings in order to save the rules; the girls will break the rules in order to save the feelings.

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

Been working on this issue for myself for a loooooong time, in and out of the Wilberian context.

I go with those who differentiate male-female from masculine-feminine. Male-female refers to qualities or characteristics which depend on biochemicals, hormones, body parts, and secondary sexual characteristics. Masculine-feminine are more psyche things, more abstract, more like principles. They are not 1:1 mappable onto particular kinds of bodies, though of course there is a strong correspondence. Male-female is generally genetic; masculine-feminine is generally cultural, though can be viewed more broadly as principles of the universe or Kosmos, both of which are present in any given individual, but usually one is predominant.

Some also tie male-female to reproductive roles.

As Kosmological principles, they can be viewed as Yin and Yang as traditionally defined, or as Wilber has summarized them. My own views are still evolving. I very much dis-resonate with Deida's characterizations, as i understand them, I know that.

If I had to briefly summarize, I would characterize “masculine” as directional and direct action-upon, toward a goal or purpose, an outcome. And feminine, as embracing, including, holding, merging with. I see these characterizations as somewhat more general than agency and communion.

One of the most dramatic instances I have seen of the difference between masculine and feminine I shall now relate, but it does involve concepts that might go beyond the beliefs of some folks here. So I hope the point of the story gets taken, whether you resonate with the details and specifics or not. The ideas don't depend on the specifics.
 
There's a guy who is a multi-dimensional or spiritual master whose expertise or talent is calming turbulence, whether that turbulence is a brain seizure, an unruly classroom, a riot, a storm, or a company in chaos. He has within his psychic lifespace a female spirit who works with him. Thus he has two very different options for calming any particular turbulent situation.

The masculine approach he uses is to kinda draw up in strength and authority, point the commanding finger at the turbulent energy, and essentially say “I command you to be calm.” And this acts upon the energy which obeys, which smooths, organizes, flows, etc. according to the directive given it, according to the idea of “calm” which it has been commanded to reference and change to.

The feminine approach she uses (via his embodiment) is to BECOME herself calm, smooth, flowing, organized, and then reach out and EMBRACE and include, to literally take into her own energy-self, the entire turbulent energy field-situation, which by merging with her calmness, is itself calmed. Instead of conforming to an externally conveyed abstraction or standard, the energy field is conforming to what it is included in.

See the exquisite difference? It blows me away, how complementary they are, how each is lovely in its own way.
 
You can probably see how these approaches are generalizable to more than the calming-of-energy-fields situation.

Anyhoo, hope that contributes to a very valuable discussion which I look forward to reading more in !!!

I particularly like, Pelle, that you are trying to clarify these ideas within the context of “Integral” discussions. On that point, I don't have much to offer as I am not involved in or aware of many such.

Blessings, OM Bastet

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

Pelle, 

I should have made the point that Ken is using masculine / feminine interchangeably with male / female in the above quote.  He clarified that in paragraphs above what I quoted.  He also spoke in this generalized manner recently in one of the latest Integral Naked vids (if you subscribe) about men and women's spirituality.  I did hear him say once that when he speaks in these generalities that they are broad generalities….

But yes, I think you're right about AQAL types definitely being too broad of a concept without developmental context–ie without referencing Levels and even more specifically Lines.  I think it's useful to be able to say something like:  “George W.  is takes a Masculine, Amber approach to foreign policy, but also is Masculine Orange in Interpersonal exchanges” or “Martha Stewart really embodies Feminine Amber / Orange in her character persona, but exhibits Masculine Amber / Orange in her professional life“ 


Masculine Feminine types are inevitably two halves to a “whole persons” understanding.  I don't think we necessarily develop to become “Type-neutral”, but we can empathize more and more fully with both as development progresses. 

OM, Impressive research! You offer much to this discussion–I agree with everything you wrote! Particularly the biological factors not 1:1 mappable with the two Types.  Understanding of Yin / Yang concepts are essential for understanding masculine / feminine, as well as Integral's Eros and Agape. I'd say any Integrated person has to find a good harmony of both.

Bryan

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

Pelle,

I have resisted this general topic for about as long as I can, but now find myself saddling up ol' Ponderizer again and taking these notions out for a ride.

I think that the responses that you have got so far are curious and insightful, bringing range into this tricky and rough semantic territory.

I guess that I don't think it is possible to talk of “masculine/feminine” and “male/female” as synonymous in any but the most general and therefore inconsequential way.

It seems that there is a problem with these words in association with one another (male more or less equals masculine and female mol = feminine) in that the grammar is both prescriptive and descriptive.  The result is that, neurolinguistically, both the noun and the adjective have been locked into the territory of respective gender and not just the realms of behavior or attributes.

How committed are you to presenting your thesis focusing on these “male/female, masculine/feminine” words?  Have you thought about making clear distinctions between them and the use of anima/animus as alternatives?

I particularly “resonated” with what OM had to say about the differences between M/F in conflict/tension resolution environments.

Boiling it down to its essentials, and leaving gender aside for the moment, it seems that the “M” principle is piercing and directive (like the “finger”) while the “F” principle is receptive and inviting (like the bowl.)

Pelle, I know that you are hard at work on this, and I admire the effort and scholarship you are bringing to this project.  Could you provide a formal “thesis statement,” or at least a current draft of one, so we could see where you are going with this?

best,
Michael

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

OM Bastet, some time ago I would have agreed completely with your post, and even today I still view your take on things as a very sophisticated view that has a lot of truth in it. However, what concerns me is what Michael so succinctly summed up as:

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

Michael, you make some great clarifications in your post (I quoted you in my last post…).

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

Thanks Pelle,

You say, “In general, my own work is about gender liberation beyond feminism, and it not only geared towards an integral audience (though I think it will be interesting to an integral audience). The challenge I've given myself is to present all my ideas in a way that's clear enough and jargon-free enough for anyone (somewhat educated) to understand.”

Could you rephrase the underlined above?

I agree with you about the difficulties of the use of the words “masculine” and “feminine.”  You might need a whole chapter on those distinctions just to get your readers up to speed. 

What intrigues me is your post-feminist vision and how you came to that.  I have heard parts of this journey before, and can easily see how you might, out of your context, develop a sense of restlessness at what might be seen as some perhaps troublesome consequences arising from a feminist state.

Have you presented your definition of feminism as a political/cultural political trend - particularly as distinct from gender rather than dependent upon it?

Do you see us humans at a “natural”  transitional cusp in the orderly transfer of power from the masc. to the fem, or vice versa?

Or do you see this transition as part of an evolutionary moment, where DNA-based gender factors, alchemized by the stress of emotions and experience will produce a “genderless” political state.

It seems a new language will be required to pull that off.

I see the “world” (universe, really) as an essentially feminine cornucopia of all things infused with masculine intention.  All+is=feminine.  All is feminine.  All is Shakti.

“Is” = perfect, eternal intention.

If we take away all “creatures” in the universe, would there still be gender? 

In the evolution of the universe within your view, when did gender arise?

DNA seems to orient a creature  towards a male or female  expression, while experience and emotion combine to create the masculine/feminine disposition.  

Can you imagine your post-feminine “change” or gender awakening as applicable across the universe?

I know that there are a lot of questions here Pelle, and I don't expect answers to them all, or even any, for that matter, but I think this is really interesting territory and as long as you are willing to keep pursuing this, I suppose I am willing to accompany you.

cheers,
Michael

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

Good stuff Michael.

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

Oh, well, Pelle, that's a different question, so I didn't address it. I didn't realize you wanted to dive more deeply, beyond “opposites.” I'm right here with my diving suit on !!!

And I love Michael's broadening the context beyond human. I live to a significant extent among non-terrestrial life-forms, with varying gender-like characteristics, and it's great to consider a larger context than human. Also I am writing a book on the evolution of sexuality-consciousness (through the SD or KW levels or stages) and I take it way way up into the top of Third Tier, where life-forms, or to be more precise, entities, do not have gender or sexuality as we know it. Looking back at gender from those perspectives really helps understand what its purpose and place in the Kosmos is.

So yeah, I'm ready to explore there. (Wondering whether I can share some of the descriptions of beyond-gender perspectives. They are kinda long….)

Wanted to reiterate that I resonate with everyone's version of what I stated as male/female and masculine/feminine are not 1:1 mappable onto one another. I can echo your response to what Michael said on this point. It all does lead to personal rigidity and etc.

One thing that might complicate our conversation is that I see duality and opposites as quite different and not identical or mutually-dependent concepts. Duality, to me, is the view that everything is separate from everything else; there is no underlying unity of any meaningful kind. But within a nondual consciousness/viewpoint/Beingness, there are still differences perceptible, there is still individuality, still distinctions, and spectrums whose ends could be defined as “opposites.”

Whether gender or masc/fem constitute a spectrum with ends, that could be a cool discussion.

Certainly there are, for us to contemplate, genderless life-forms on earth, and life-forms that shade in and out of gender, or even back and forth between gendered and nongendered at different times or places in their life circumstances.

I'd like to know more about:

So I guess what concerns me is that we will never have a sophisticated nor friendly gender discussion if we adopt the words 'feminine' and 'masculine' from the spiritual field, and add that to all the previous animosity and misunderstanding that already exists between the sexes. I fear that it will also limit research and lead to a lot of sloppy assumptions.

I guess what I'm trying to do in this thread is to point out that besides the gift of reclaiming the difference between men and women, we may be introducing new problems by talking about 'masculine' and 'feminine'.

So what other words would we use? Any suggestions? And what will be the relationship to the common concepts? Isn't the whole point of the discussion to clarify the common concepts in a way that is useful and healing and to our best level, “accurate?”

I think I am not yet understanding what research, what assumptions, what problems you are focusing on. But I believe in your goal of providing ways of regarding and thinking about gender that are healthier than what exists now — that is a significant part of my own purpose, too. I totally applaud your efforts.

And I am glad you are aware of other “post-feminist” emerging viewpoints, too. It'll probably be a grassroots thing.

And we are all amongst those growing roots here !!

Blessings, OM Bastet

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

I believe a core confusion arises around the terms masculine and feminine because they mean “characteristic of men” and “women” respectively and these meanings strongly adheres to the terms however differently people try to employ them.

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

Yeah, I'm coming to this point of view more and more. No matter how clear, how specifically, we use the terms masculine and feminine, they limit rather than liberate us.

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

Parallel to this discussion, I have just picked up Joshua Glasgow's A Theory of Race and am intrigued by his thesis statement in that it may have implications for this discussion: 

“Social commentators have long asked whether racial categories should be conserved or eliminated from our practices, discourse, institutions, and perhaps even private thoughts. In “A Theory of Race”, Joshua Glasgow argues that this set of choices unnecessarily presents us with too few options. Using both traditional philosophical tools and recent psychological research to investigate folk understandings of race, Glasgow argues that, as ordinarily conceived, race is an illusion. However, our pressing need to speak to and make sense of social life requires that we employ something like racial discourse. These competing pressures, Glasgow maintains, ultimately require us to stop conceptualizing race as something biological, and instead understand it as an entirely social phenomenon.”

The question being:  is gender a social phenomenon in the same way?



 

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

Ha, good question. Now I have to try to remember to look for an old thread where we discussed this…

There is ample evidence that gender is, indeed, something much mroe fluid than we commonly talk about. But perhaps this should be a thread in itself, Mickey. (I just made a nickname for you. I wonder if you like it.)

Liz

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

Hi Liz,

No good reason to prang off on race in this thread.  I only brought it in as a comparative point of reference.  I like where Glasgow goes with his opening arguments which may be of help here too:

He posits three viewpoints:

1)  the “legacy” position which seeks to preserve and honor racial distinctions (rainbow)

2)  the “dismantle” position which seeks to wipe out racial distinctions including racially oriented thought,  (mud)

3)  the “reconstructivist” position which seeks to examine in depth the state of race in a single “communicator” group (in his case, english-speaking Americans)

He makes it clear from the beginning that he is a reconstructivist and goes about his examinations and arguments as such.

What I wonder is if this same structure can be applied to this discussion?  How happy are we with the language as it is?  Pelle seems to have taken a sort of reconstructivist position with the language at least while taking aim at the strictures of the politics of Feminism.  (Don't let me put words in your mouth here Pelle)

Still, the conversation about Feminism must deal with these words and distinctions successfully or nothing will happen to dislodge the growing support in the west in particular for a Feminist socio-political orientation.

At this point, given how badly (it seems) that the ol' boys club has porked things around in the last millenium or three, I am still down with this rise of the fem when it comes to priority setting and diplomacy.

Trouble is, we are at the point (with Hillary Clinton) of letting women who have been taken over by their animus obtain positions of great power.  Sarah Palin is another.  Imo, what appeals to people about the one is the same appeal as the other.  Hillary's tears are just as much an act as are Palin's winks and prance.

This is a cool conversation.  Perfect for this time of change.

Oh, about the “mickey?” … … you would be the first.  Try “Maxie” if you feel the need to use a diminutive, I do from time to time.

onward, into a new era where new words can be born upon the ashes of the old, (or something like that)

Michael

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

Hey Michael,

I think “race” as a “social construct” is becoming more a realization in post-modernia for a couple reasons I can think of: 

One. A long time ago it was probably more “appropriate” to “categorize” people in terms of race or even ethnicity since tribes and or early nations were likely to be composed of people with characteristically similar genealogical makeup localized in specific areas.  In other words it's possible these days to genetically trace a given person's DNA to a certain ages of history within a certain geographical location where people of a certain culture endured.  “Race,” or the localization of certain genetic traits, was, by default, tied to one's culture and one's geography.  But modernity allows a person to easily travel the world and settle down with someone with a different history, in a different culture in a different area, thereby blurring the old boundaries by which a “race” was “categorized.”

Two.  Modernity also allowed for the increased expansion of communication and therefore the expansion of culture to other areas (we could cite globalization as a possibly emotionally-charged example of this).  Trade, travel, and immigration / emigration have created “melting pots” of genetics and culture as well, so today we can't particularly place someone's background merely because they're drawn to bongo-drum music for example. Whereas, any time prior to a few hundred years ago, anyone who even knew what a bongo drum was, was from Africa.

The Masculine and Feminine, with their loose ties to gender (which I mean as the biological male and female (two terms, come to find out,  only useful as generalizations in biology to boot)), are also losing their once (often historically enforced) rigid characteristics.  I'd first generalize by saying that prior to a few hundred years ago if you were a soldier or warrior you were male.  And with the type of reproductive organ you were born with, came cultural and sociological expectations, and pre-given roles.  Thanks to modernity, we have increasing freedom to choose our own place and allow our own inclinations to flourish regardless of cultural momentum.   So the historical gender lines have been–thankfully–blurring more and more.
However, i'd add that regardless of the level of social indoctrination, a person born male will LIKELY tend towards the agentic, and a female will LIKELY tend towards the communal, because of certain genetic (or Exterior) makeup.  However i'm convinced that other certain genetic makeups can also contribute to the inverse of that generalization (ie agentic females, and communal males), but, again, an agentic culture can contribute to a person being more (or less) agentic.  It's, genetic-makeup, sociological factors, cultural influence, AND one's own personal response to these factors that are… factors…

Bryan   


 

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

However, i'd add that regardless of the level of social indoctrination, a person born male will LIKELY tend towards the agentic, and a female will LIKELY tend towards the communal, because of certain genetic (or Exterior) makeup.  However i'm convinced that other certain genetic makeups can also contribute to the inverse of that generalization (ie agentic females, and communal males), but, again, an agentic culture can contribute to a person being more (or less) agentic.  It's, genetic-makeup, sociological factors, cultural influence, AND one's own personal response to these factors that are… factors…

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

Interesting Pelle - I too think that the paragraph of Bryan's that you quoted is a fair summation of where most integralites are at.

I am curious what differences you see between this position and the radical post-modernist position?

It seems that since the late 19th century, and particularly since the middle '50's, a kind of shift is taking place, at least in the prospective “control group” of euro-american “gender” politicians.

Initially, women, who were either by repression or expectation, (a form of repression) reduced to communal duties with no representation outside of the home, caught a certain revolutionary fire under the sway of industrialization.  Working (in select settings) at the same pace and productivity as men, and alongside their underage children, (which must have confounded their nurturing instincts) it did not take long for the latent feelings of inequality that women had suffered under for millenia to rise into rebellion. 

Where did this agency come from if was not always there in the first place?  Methinks it takes a mighty agency to maintain nurture and communion.

Men, on the other hand (imo) have had to slowly give ground before this rising tide of fem agency - or, is it just genderless “agency” that is really separate from gender and only characterizes gender because of some perpetual illusion?

Interestingly, it seems that men have had to take some of their agency and use it to foster communion among their peers and a workable detente with the babes.

We cant really look to other species for clues as across the animal kingdom, boys will not just be boys and girls will not just be girls - various species show a wide variety of “gender” domination/submission traits.

How much of what we experience as the male/female (gender) paradigm is imposed upon our mind/thoughtform structure by custom and not biology? 

This is why I think that the “Glasgow” example above may be pertinent to the gender-politics discussion here.

best,
Michael

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

Methinks it takes a mighty agency to maintain nurture and communion.

…absolutely; getting three children up, washed, dressed and fed and out the door to school in a morning in a way that doesn't resort to bullying takes plenty of agency :D

Julie

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

Michael:

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

Pelle:Women and men were co-creators of the traditional roles, it was not one party who forced the other one into a certain role. Each role was (and to some extent is) severely constricted, and men were expected to play their role just as much as women were expected to play theirs.

I don’t think this is quite correct. In a culture were it is acceptable to dominate and subjugate other humans by using physical violence or threat of violence, women easily end up being repressed, and having less freedom and rights than men. This pattern can still this day be seen in many cultures. In Muslim societies men have right to physically punish their wives as long as they don’t cause them permanent physical injury.

In those societies women’s legal rights are much weaker than mens’ .

For people to evolve they need some freedom to explore new territories. Muslim women have very limited possibilities to this, and stagnation is a result. Muslim men have not understood the role of cultural we space, the lower left quadrant in AQAL terms, in which women inevitably participate also. In a culture, where women’s freedom and development is seriously limited, also men’s development stagnates, especially as women raise also the boys.

In modern western societies, where women have equal legal rights with men, and physical violence towards women is not men’s legal right, women have started to evolve truly fast on a broad front. By broad front I mean both really many women progressing fast, and also that progress appearing in many different  lines of intelligence, not just in cognitive line.

 

Men seem to be dragging behind in that pace. Many men still stick to old, time tested male strategies, which to their disappointment do not work too well any more. Some men interpret their feeling of being at loss with women, being caused by women repressing men now. I haven’t seen that in significant measure anywhere.

Instead I see many men being stuck at a defensive position, and not being able to figure out pathways for their own further evolving.

Considering the discussion here about  the sloppy use of terms masculine and feminine, I agree. It can be confusing and harmful.

I don’t understand why a certain quality has to be called feminine/masculine, if somewhat more women/men tend to express that quality. Why not just say e.g. that women tend to have more nurturing qualities, and men tend to have more drive towards risk taking. That is more precise.

Every individual should be able to feel free to express her/his innate talents and tendencies without those qualities being labeled as feminine or masculine.

The long patriarchal history of humanity has created a tendency to see feminine qualities as less valuable than male qualities. This deep seated attitude is now creating problems for men’s growth as human beings, as they  at least unconsciously feel it to be shameful to express qualities, which have got the label of being feminine.

In India doing yoga asanas has been traditionally male activity. Now in western societies, where women have adopted yoga, many men find it impossible to participate in yoga classes. When they are asked why not, they don’t seem to know even themselves why not. They just don’t want to.

Irmeli

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

Pelle, I can appreciate what you are getting at, and in my experience, alas it is not so simple… I was watching the movie the Duchess with Keira Knightely, and Ralph Fiennes the other day, and I was reminded of two things: 1. my parents relationship. 2. those strange bottlenecks in traffic, where something happened somewhere sometime ago, and hours later, there is still a compression of flow, there is no choice unless you want to sped and ram into other vehicles; just the way it is.

In my parents marriage, and in many, most marriages of that day, and lasting in some ways still, there are roles AND within those roles only some freedoms are allowed.  And the ‘molding’ of those roles may be as invisible as the ‘bottleneck of traffic’.  

In those roles there are dominator roles and subjuated roles….and complicit beyond that are the ways that subjugated players do their best to muster some sort of power.  What is true is that those subjugated almost always more about the dominators than the other way around.   Rianne Eisler in the Chalice and the Blade has written most eloquently about this, and I for one do not dismiss what she is saying. 




I know that you are making a stand for not accepting the victim-perpetrator model, but until we have an honest reckoning of who has power, and what needs to be done to shift to a partnership model, I don’t see how we will move forward.  Like it or not, white men have been (and are) the rich kids on the block…. they have the “stuff’ and the ‘position’ and they have been making the decisions and wielding the power.  They have not had much regard, indeed, they have been largely oblivious to, other perspectives.  And YES they have also been ‘victims’ in that role too, having inherited it and not having been able to climb out from its burden by choice; but then who, of all these splendid white men, wants to give up being the KING in charge?  We have been living in a ‘might is right’ model for thousands of years.  The shift to- ‘hmm, let’s have a little look-see, and figure out what works best for everyone’ model- is not an easy shift.  Plantation owners and slaves did not carry the same power of self determination.  Colonialized people did not carry the same power of self determination as the colonizers.  Women have not carried the same power of self determination as men….. and AND I think this puts a huge spin on this discussion. 




I wish you would do an inventory of all the ways that you as a white man have been both privileged…. and wounded.  And I also wish that you provided more space for all of us, women, minorities, whatever to do the same.  Some of the ways that women, minorities have been wounded have been at the hands of dominator white men, and continue to be…. indeed, it is hard to ignore this fact at all….it has been bred into our present system…in our languaging, in our assumptions, in our prejudices……and I believe we need more of a voice, rather than less of one, in acknowledging this.   




It is true the system, as it has been, sucks….still, it is the history that we are living through and continue to metabolize.   This history is imprinted on us, stamped onto our respective genders just as surely as we are born with one set of genitals or the other.  It is part of being male and female….and not simply a matter of biology, or temperment, agency or communality…..




As my father(who thankful has largely reformed and mended his ways) used to say: “he who pays the piper, calls the tune.”  A sad reality perhaps, but the way we have been living.  

Jane

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

This is certainly one of those inexhaustible topics of discussion!

I Love it!

It seems clear from this discussion that great care needs to be exercise when using the terms Masculine & Feminine. Meaning changes somewhat as development unfolds. The complexities are immense.

Here’s a quote I just got in my inbox this morning that may be pertinent to the discussion. 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

“Voice of the Week” from Enlighten Next…

Leading Voices from an Emerging Culture

Post-Gendered Man

With the slow but sure rise of women to full partnership with men, there is an unexpected reward, which is the release of men to become fully who they are, quite apart from traditional roles and expectations. What does this release look like? It’s the ability to take on a fullness of roles that are not specifically male or female but are almost “post-gendered.” It requires that men tap into deeper aspects of their nature.

Jean Houston

Cross-cultural researcher in human capacities

EnlightenNext magazine, August–October 2008 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Here is a toast to our further emergence as more comprehensive, more whole, more integrated beings here in the world!

Cheers,

Doug

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

Well after the third try I finally edited my post successfully.

Attaboy Doug! HeHe

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

I came across this picture today on Reddit.  Once the pangs of blatant insult subsides, I think you get to see a good example of what we’ve been discussing.  Clearly the advice given is meant for male supervisors to follow.  The extraordinary thing is that the advice SHOULD be practiced no matter the gender of trainee–which implies an entirely different list for male trainees (we can all imagine what those might look like).

 Note the NURTURING tone.  And the probable lack thereof in the old male-dominated workplace.  I agree that women were more marginalized in pre-modern times and historically much suffering was had, but I’ll venture that there was plenty of domination to go around for everybody. I think that’s just how underdeveloped societies operate. Maybe someone can speculate as how men gained and held power for so long historically? Physical prowess? Propensity for risk taking?  Anybody?

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

I actually think this is a great little piece of work. You could view it as an Orange or even higher-meme author telling a Blue or lower-meme man how to interact with women respectfully, in an unfamiliar and new situation. I especially like the admonishment against “horseplay.” It doesn’t shame the man, but establishes that women want to be treated respecfully, in language that is unthreatening to the male. Imagine if they used the sexual harassment verbage of today. The men of that time would find it ridiculous at best. Many still do. My father just recently stated he couldn’t understand why “an inocuous pat on the behind” is offensive.

~~~~~

I truly get what Jane and others are saying. But I just see so much complicity in women…they are the enforcers of the status quo, and they are a lot more covert about it. Nobody sees the damage a woman does, usually, in the emergency room. But what responsibility does the mother of the child who is brutally sexually abused bear? She ignores it, or condones it, or simply fails to act. This, IMO, is the abuse she doesn’t get called on. This is her violence.

It’s the same in the workplace, and everywhere else. It’s women who teach their children the rules, and who enforce it. It’s women who commit genital mutliation in Africa, by and large. They insist on it. Show me a rapist, and I’ll show you a man who was encouraged in that behavior by a woman, at some point in his development. You can no more say it’s a male problem than you can say one side of a coin exists without the other.

Liz

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

Right on, Liz!

I didn’t think of that image as a potentially “skillful” way to communicate ethical behavior to Blue/amber.  That image now has a more embracing quality to it.  Thanks.

Next point:

What comes to mind is that quote KW repeats often in regards to  “occupational hazards” of masc. / fem. It goes something like:  “In the face of relational hardship, the Masculine will sacrifice the relationship for sake of his self, while the Feminine will sacrifice her self for sake of the relationship.”

When it comes to heavy emotional and physical abuse / violence perpetrated by men I think the level of a person’s self-worth comes into play in this dynamic.  If a person has low self worth and is Masculine then they will erode and degrade any relationship around them by use of physical abuse if need be to “get the point across” or “show who’s boss”–if the development is low enough; and if a person has low self worth and is Feminine in nature, they’ll stay in a relationship that is violent and destructive to everyone involved + themselves and thereby be complicit in any agentic physical / mental violence perpetrated onto others (i.e. the inability to just “walk away”)–if the development is low enough.

 I’ve known people to play out this drama and it is THAT predictable.  It is also, as you said, two sides to the same coin.

Bryan

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

Ah! Excellent. This is the perfect example of where using “agency” and “communion” works so much better than “masculine” and “feminine.” (Apologies to anyone who noticed that I got threads mixed up in my head-it’s still relevant)

Those terms really point to the actual behaviors involved, rather than some not-really-agreed-upon and outdated ones.

Thanks for that insight!

Liz

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

Liz, It is amazing when I read this post how much I was triggered by it. On the level of the emergency room, where the buck stops really, (there and the police station), the overwhelmingly common final pathway to my door is male violence….done to women and children, and of course other men….. 

The women complicit in their children’s sexual abuse exist, marginally.  Most women who discover their children are being sexually abused by their partners do not collude with the abuse, not by a long shot.  It is as abhorrent to most mothers.

However, women are complicit.  We have been emerging from a ‘cultural misogyny’.  Men have dominated women, and other women have believed men were supposed to dominate women thereby training their daughters and sisters and friends in the role of being dominated.  Really, rectifying how women have been complicit in this has been the gift of the feminist movement.  Some women woke up and said, ‘this is a social justice issue’…..’we demand equal rights’….and they stood boldly in the backwash as other women disagreed…. Freedom is not given, it is taken…. It was Voltaire or some one who said, “a slave is also a person who waits for someone else to set him free.”  

When my youngest sister was born, the fifth girl in a row, my mother on the birth bed looked at my father and said, “I’m sorry Jim.”  Really, this speaks volumes…. How many times in my generation did that get said by mothers and felt by fathers…. We are coming out of a bottleneck where women have NOT been valued equally, and we have those specific wounds and defences, alternatively, to show for it…. 

Within this cultural wounding(granted, colluded in, oblivious and invisible to, to some extent, and   accepted by both men and women) , both in devaluing women and believing that women did not rank self-determination, AND in valuing men and allowing and encouraging all manner of Little-Lord-Fauntleroy-isms, it remains true that the social norm was that men dominated women, and women were subjugated to men.  So women(as you point out Liz) got a double dose of subjugation both from men and other women!…..”Who” has done the subjugating, does not change the reality of what has been imprinted on women, and the burden from under which we are crawling, and which, at this point, is still held in our cells, imprinted on our psyche.  

Michael, I appreciate your post…and agree with you analogy with the Gaza Strip… How does this get rectified!?  I don’t think it will happen by anyone saying, “hey quit yer bitchin’!”  It happens with great compassion, with holding steady that ‘peace is the way’, and by refusing to collude in the violence, even while the shadow looms from this stark, dark history.  It requires love and firmness.  It requires deep integrity.  It requires a lot of men and women saying “this is just not good enough”….even while understanding why the urge to react and strike back with vengance and vehemence is so strong…. 

So I guess, Pelle, the historical piece is important, STILL, now, for the time being…and it defines to a large extent the masculine and feminine. I look forward to a time on this earth, when history doesn’t define gender roles, when Men and Women are interchangeable as figures of governance, and wisdom…..but that time is not yet, though my sense is that the traffic is speeding up and the bottle neck is loosening, the flow is beginning. 

Jane

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

I had no intent of triggering you, Jane, and of course, you always take full responsibility for your feelings. But I do want to say to you that I’m not minimizing the effects of our outdated and ill-fitting gender roles.

Liz

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

(the good news about the update is it has tricked the web master at work and I can look at the discussions…) I was actually kinda curious about my ‘triggery-ness’….it is a fear that all will be smoothed over in a bypass-pip-pip-all-is-well-now kinda way…or in the way that ‘women are responsible too, so ‘ya made yer bed and now you can lie in it”. The number that has been done collectively to women’s self-esteem, and general worth in society has been, and still is a pretty big blight…..I think when I see men hold the space for women’s anger, when I see them actually doing an honest accounting of their own part in this, when I see the ones in the dominator role start to give back the stuff they have sequestered for the common good, well, then I will breath some sigh of relief that we are through the worst of it. And, AND this does not mean that men have to give up their strength/agency, but rather that they begin to exude responsibility and compassion. The same goes for women…

(I wonder if this will post now)

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

YES. I understand. This already happens, as it’s a fine line between those who’ve understood and integrated this into a larger view, and those who simply want to bypass this reality and move on without really changing their inner–what?–bigot? You see this with racism and any other long-ingrained inequality as well. The desire to gloss over. “You’ve had your 5 minutes of catch-up time, now get back in line.”

But I think this is where the potential lies in no longer using the terms masculine and feminine. Then we’re no longer tied to the past in such a murky and indecipherable way. We can use a term like agency, name how it goes awry, and it really diminishes the shame and guilt associated with saying something like, “Oh, that’s a bad masculine trait.” Ugh. And we can say, “This is a case of agency going overboard.” Or whatever.

Liz

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

“This is a case of agency going overboard.” Or whatever.

Hmm …This may be a bit late in the conv. to ask such a retro question, but, I am hoping that the words ‘agency’ and ‘communion’ are attempts to de-gender ‘masc.’ and ‘fem.’

Is that right? if so, I feel a bit more closely drawn to their use as, now that I am like all integrated and everything, I am feeling both of those (agency and communion) as less warring and more sympatico within.

Still, I can relate strongly to the triggerish circumstances that Jane has to face. No matter what the underlying complicities, it is men who drive the jailhouse/ER business model.

I have a lot of direct experience with the other side of this equation being a routine patient at a VA hospital where the throw-a-guy-away-a-day program is in full swing.

Notably, each of these berefts is usually accompanied by a woman - wife, daughter, or mother who is suffering right along with the vet, and, increasingly, women are showing up in the vetstatistics with similar problems as men, and problems specific to their “gender.”

Sadly, it seems, more often the women are alone.

I think that I get how in Jane’s eyes, the dominator culture freaks out at the thought of providing women safe space to express this deep rage and have it held. This scares me. I want to be able to do that, I just don’t feel secure enough in my own sense of place in the world to not (in a negative grandiose fashion) take more resp. than is mine to bear.

just sayin’

maxie

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

Pelle, Dear Ones,

Like Doug, I too, love this conversation. I particularly love the fact that I have a dialogue box this time and that the characters are actually filling themselves in as I type and not ten to twenty behind which is pretty deranging for me I tell ya.

First of all Pelle, I really appreciate the way that you are putting yourself out here - very open and willing to engage others in this profoundly important gender matter while holding (as it seems to me) a white flag of truce in one hand and discarding your bequeathed but unused perpetrator swordfrom the other. Like Jon said in another thread, this seems (is) some mighty turquoise responsibility-taking and it cheers me greatly to be a part of it.

What I have to say is pretty much what Jane, Irmeli, and Liz have offered with particular attention to Jane’s image of the bottleneck. We are in a bottleneck and the old gender/language structures are no longer suitable or fitting to the emergent conditions. It goes beyond fashion, style, and convention, into a new territory where the unfamiliar is the norm. I utterly agree with you that it is time to forge a new relationship that transcends the old paradigm. How to do this without leaving a smoldering trail of resentment in the wake of this change?

Perhaps this overstates the case (or understates it) but the Palestinian/Israeli dilemma comes to mind: what would solve that one? What would precipitate solution without requiring that bygones be bygones before detente could emerge? The only way that this could be produced, and, assigning the ‘victim’ role to the Palestinians, and the agressor role to the Israelis (just sayin’) that the P’s (the fem in this case) would only have to disarm utterly and the world would pour money love and protection upon them. The Gaza would become a new Beruit and the very mercantile and practical Palestinians would inherit a thriving banking and vacation state.

This change would require the aggressor masc. Israelis to back off and learn to accommodate. As Irmeli has pointed out, the middle east is a hotbed of inappropriate balance of power between men and women where resentment has been simmering for thousands of years. How do we bring an integral notion of gender equality to that? How do we erase the now virtually imbedded genetic memory of institutional religion’s androcentric holy quest to incinerate the Goddess culture out of the bodies of women and men for the past 3500 yrs?

Sure there has been some fem complicity, what else might one expect when your life and the driving responsibility to produce more vehicles for the grand purpose must be carried forth no matter what the conditions?

So yes, as Liz has said, women have their part in this as do we men. But how to set down the tools which have worked poorly but adequately enough to put 7B souls on the planet so we can mash our way through Jane’s bottleneck with as little damage to the kiddies as possible?

We must do what we are doing, haul up the truce flags and leave them up, reconsider this language thing and when in doubt, admit it and go within for the answers for that is where the real damage and falseness lie and, once discovered and amended, the new language will emerge just in time like it always does when we pay attention to where it will do us the most good: inside.

There, in time,the base metal of fear and doubt will be alchemized by the philosopher’s stone of chaos into a new language and a new perspective that sees no gender, no race, no creed, no age.

What a fine place to be, what a fine time it has been since the Nile days when we first broke ground for this new earth, this new task, eh?

love and blessings,

maxie

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

Bryan: I agree that women were more marginalized in pre-modern times and

historically much suffering was had, but I’ll venture that there was

plenty of domination to go around for everybody. I think that’s just

how underdeveloped societies operate. Maybe someone can speculate as

how men gained and held power for so long historically? Physical

prowess? Propensity for risk taking?  Anybody?

We are supposed to be integralists here at this pod. I however perceive the discussion on this topic to be pretty ethnocentric. When we take a more worldcentric look, it is clear that most women also today are pretty marginalized.

 In the Muslim world, when a woman gets raped, she is herself considered guilty, and even ecpected to commit a suicide. The rapist often gets out of hook. The threat of rape is also used  by men to keep control over women, and to put a stop for their demands of greater self-determination.

In Mongolia still today 30 % of men get a wife to themselves by robbing one.

In todays India in some areas the ratio between 7-8 old boys and girls is 140 boys to 100 girls. This is probably due to both female fetuses being aborted and the poorer care girls get by their parents.

And why do women abort female fetuses? Do they innately hate babygirls? I don’t suppose so. I think this is because of the poor position and the insecurity women experience in the surrounding family setting. They want to secure their position by having boys.

 And why are boys so much more wanted? It is the societal structures that gives dominator power to men in really many areas of life. In those societies women are, when they marry,  supposed to move to live with their husband’s family, and take care of them, instead of her own parents. Also in case of divorce the children belong to the man, even if the man often himself does not nurse them, but gives them to some relatives, or the new wife, to be taken care of.

This means robbing women severely of their power in their very own domain of competence.

And why men have gained this sort of power, and held it for so long historically?

I think the roots to this can be found in the very demanding task of raising human children. Somehow men had to be attracted to parenting children, instead of just fucking around breeding them. In exchange for the loss of that freedom they got dominance and a sense of superiority over women. Women and especially children benefited also from this improved protection and parenting provided by the men.

To be able to culturally take the next step in development, the importance of parenting the children by both parents must be internalized. The problems created by subjugating and dominating women, must be seen too. And men in the developing countries, have to first a little bit relinguish their need to subjugate women, so that women can feel secure enough to start to fight for their human rights. Only together with improved human rights for women will the capacity to mutuality and a true dialogue between men and women develop. And only after that women will be able to raise children that grow to adulthood with this capacity internalized.

We have to be able to discuss these issues openly without men feeling they are being victimized. I don’t write this to blame men. I think these things has to be discussed  for both men and women to be able to recognize historically certain patterns, to understand why we have come to where we are now, and how we could proceed from here. If someone feels he is victimized by this kind of discussion, that interpretation is his own choice.

Irmeli

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

Irmeli,

Aside from that, you did provide a considerable perspective I had not heard before.  Thanks

Bryan

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

Liz:It’s women who teach their children the rules, and who enforce it. It’s

women who commit genital mutliation in Africa, by and large. They

insist on it. Show me a rapist, and I’ll show you a man who was

encouraged in that behavior by a woman, at some point in his

development. You can no more say it’s a male problem than you can say

one side of a coin exists without the other.

Children, who have experienced violence as children, tend to automatically repeat those violent acts as adults, if they have not been able to feel the difficult emotions the violence created, and critically evaluate the situation. The position of women is often too poor for them to do that. Old women in those cultures, that heavily subjugate young women, tend to have a lot of power. However they get that power only, if they align with the patriarchal structures.

In their subjugated state women are not capable of evolving as human beings. This is however a prerequisite for them to be able to raise their children differently.

And of course both men and women are in the same boat here. If women experience developmental stagnation and even regression because of their subjugation, men’s development through the stages will stagnate also.

Irmeli

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

In their subjugated state women are not capable of evolving as human

beings. This is however a prerequisite for them to be able to raise

their children differently.

I couldn’t disagree with this statement any more, and it’s the kind of statement that is completely disempowering for women to hear, placing her as a victim and stripping her of her dignity. If this were true, we’d all still be living in the dark ages. Many women can and do change their circumstances.

It is often those who are most subjugated who make the most progress in a civil rights struggle, and there is opportunity for transformation no matter what one’s social status. Granted, it’s far more difficult to change your situation if you have little power or money. But there are always choices that can be made.

Liz

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

Liz: I couldn’t disagree with this statement any more, and it’s the kind of

statement that is completely disempowering for women to hear, placing

her as a victim and stripping her of her dignity.

This is partly true, but only partly.

I have done a lot of thinking on why the Muslim women don’t rise to fight for their rights, become empowered. Why do they settle for the circumstances they live in.

Some say they are happy in their roles. I don’t think it is true. They don’t even look like being happy. Women of my age are old and look old in a way, that I have difficult to relate them being the same age as I am.

Those Muslim women, that immigrate to Finland, and can read and learn our language (this is a minority of them) claim that In Finland the law or legal system is on the side of women. We Finns, both men and women, say it treats the genders equally. It is not protecting men’s dominator power over women as in Muslim cultures.

Why do the Muslim women tolerate this?

Is it possible they are too subjugated to start to fight for their rights? Starting to fight for more self-determination, could mean men labeling you as a whore, and group raping you, and then expecting you to commit a suicide. If you as a Muslim woman  want to choose yourself your husband, you could end up being honor killed.

In Iran a lot of young women commit suicide. Does their heroic empowerment projects end up this way? The subjugation, the slavery must be lightened up to some degree, and then the Muslim women can start to fight for more self-determination. Maybe the men, who want to have women as their slaves, sense this, and therefore out of fear, don’t give this possibility to women.

I have myself been able to raise up from pretty difficult family conditions, and have not been continuing acting out those distorted patterns. I know this is possible. However I have had around me in the society people, and structures that have supported me in this process. Muslim women don’t have that.

Irmeli

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

Irmeli,  I think you are doing a wonderful job holding a clear and integral and compassionate view here.  

As Nietzche (man I can never remember how to spell his name) wrote:  ”That which does not kill you makes you stronger.”  So perhaps it could be argued that the women and all the other colonized underlings of history who have survived and made it to the 21st century are ‘stronger’ and  more able to evolve.  This however does not deny the attrition toll that such subjugation takes.  Again, I would recommend Alice Miller’s books on the poisonous pedagogy of child rearing.  The ways that children both male and female have been wounded(albeit unconsciously) is pretty undeniable.  Resiliency, is an amazing and remarkable thing.  The one element that is common in all children with ‘resiliency’ is a conscious, compassionate witnessing adult presence—one person somewhere who understood what was going on, and however quietly was able to resonate.  As more and more women have broken the societal pattern of female subjugation at the hands of men(and Pelle, women were chattel for God sakes until the last century, with no rights to own property, or vote…with a legal system that was embedded in the patriarchy…..similar to how it is for Muslim women in Afghanistan) there have been more and more women able to stand up and bear witness and help their younger sisters through the dark night…..and actually, there have been more and more men who have woken up to the devastation of this kind of subjugation and have been able to help their sisters, AND begin to heal their own wounds…..my hat off to all of them! 

Liz, This is a very hard line that you are taking, it seems to me.  There are many examples of ‘subjugation’ in history, and they all play out in a certain pattern….I am watching the emergence of the Innu, our aboriginal group here in Labrador…. I watch the little children come in in all states of wildness and neglect…. They don’t call it a Trail of Tears for nothing.  An untold loss has happened in the aboriginal community, and there is a similar story for women(and men).  When children are abused, for instance by the priest in community, and then beaten by their parents for saying such a thing happened…..and with no Robert Masters, integral therapist around, to begin to gently tease out the knot of shock and despair and hopelessness…..and when you add alcohol and drugs and gas into the mix, with the ensuing FASD, and brain damage…. well, evolution, and coming out of the shadow of this war becomes less likely. Coming out of it become heroic…and anyone who wakes up to the journey they have just been on will almost inevitably say, ‘but for the grace of God go I.” Resiliency is truly amazing.  And there may be some wounds from which some people CANNOT recover(look at the homeless drunks on Hastings, look at the young, dull war vets at the VA hospital, look here, look there…there are many people who will not survive).  It becomes then the responsibility of those of us who do recover, survive and thrive to also develop a deep compassion and bear the care of those who did not. Many people who refused to be victims have been and are still killed for their trouble, many are badly maimed.  Many people are killed on the road to freedom. 

In the m/f evolutionary story, the dominator pattern has taken its toll on everybody, it is not just constricting for women, it is constricting for men, and children,  and all other societies, and the earth community….. and it has had functional moments too…. the shift from horticulture to agrarian etc, the stuff we have managed to invent and the science and the ability to really look deeply and the way the universe came into being. In the warring struggle to arrive, survive and thrive in all the corners of the earth, we have learning a lot about who we are and how it all works…… it is however, time something new.  This  something new does not come by denying the immense struggle of our forebearers, men and women, but by turning to what is, and ‘doing the work’ of healing and growing and waking up.  

Jane 

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

I don’t agree with most of the premises nor the language used by Jane, Irmeli and Michael in the last few posts. In fact, the core of my work rests on seeing how the basic analysis that feminism does is flawed, and how the kind of language used in this very thread perpetuates these feminist misunderstandings. Feminism isn’t flawed when claiming that women needed the right to vote, to have free access to the labor market, to have a voice in the public sphere and gain reproductive freedom - but it’s flawed since it assumes that men have always acted upon their free will and women have always been the victim of structures. Feminism is also immensely one-sided, and only sees how culture has laid down patterns of abusing women, while failing to see how culture abuses men. And I don’t mean this in a kind of intellectual, bypassing kind of way - I truly mean that most intelligent, educated people today fail to really grasp the very palpable trauma of the male gender role.

What feminism says is that for a typical, traditional man working in a coal mine, who has a typical traditional wife who raises the children and takes care of the home, the situation is one where he is the dominator who has all the power and she is a meek, subjugated wife. In my mind this is a very skewed analysis of things. This man who works in a coal mine is sacrificing his lungs and his health to provide the financial womb needed to raise the children and support his wife. He does this not out of choice, because his role is as automatic and constricted as that of his wife’s, and he has no choice or control over his own life. His wife sacrifices her own voice in the public sphere, and pours all her energy into raising children and being a homemaker. Neither the man nor the woman is free! Neither one has control over their lives! And neither one can probably see an alternative way of doing things, because at the traditional level of development the only thing you can see is fulfilling your own role and sacrificing your own health and happiness in order to have kids who can one day succeed at their roles…

I don’t expect one short post in forum to change the mind of anyone, that is why I’m doing this kind of work in a much more systematic way nowadays. And I’m hugely inspired when I see that even in the integral movement, the basic analysis that postmodern feminism does is alive and well. This makes me even more convinced that the kind of work I’m doing is truly needed.

Evolution will go on, and the solutions that feminism once provided, are simply inadequate for a more integral, integrated age of humankind. In fact, I believe that a more integrated and less one-sided way of looking at gender issues will be more effective than feminism at achieving real change in both developed and developing countries. I simply don’t view feminism as an effective tool for achieving change in the muslim world, or other places where many people feel that the gender roles need to evolve. A gender liberation movement would automatically take inside and outside perspectives of *both* men and women, and that is the only way to find a way forward. Regardless of what it might claim, feminism does not do this. At best, it looks at men from a distance, using the feminism framework, and then says that men are included.

Pelle

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

Pelle:In fact, the core of my work rests on seeing how the basic analysis that feminism does is flawed, and how the kind of language used in this very thread perpetuates these feminist misunderstandings.


It is not very constructive approach to claim that feminism is flawed. Feminism is one perspective, one view. There are also others. These differing views should be capable of co-existing, and be in dialogue with each other.

Making a general statement that some approach or perspective is flawed, without trying  to refute a single idea that is represented through this approach that is labeled flawed, means resorting to erroneous generalizations.

Patriachalism is a structure, that was not created by the free will of men. No one has claimed here that. Men are as much restricted by that structure in todays world as women are. In our past it has been the best and most advanced structure for humanity. Many parts of the world however are developmentally stuck in pathological forms of patriarchalism.

Pelle: What feminism says is that for a typical, traditional man working in a coal mine, who has a typical traditional wife who raises the children and takes care of the home, the situation is one where he is the dominator who has all the power and she is a meek, subjugated wife.

I don’t know what feminism says about this kind of situation, but I have strong suspicions that feminism claims something like that.

You live in Scandinavia as I do, Pelle. Here women have traditionally been pretty equal with men.

Here I have never found any reason to start to fight for women’s rights. I like to be a woman, and have never felt subjugated because of being feminine. I have been happily married for 38 years, stayed at home for years taking care of children. I’m not very career oriented. I like to take care of home, cooking , gardening etc. And I have always been  able to expressing my differing view, even pretty strongly, when I don’t agree with my husband. We can discuss things. He is not controlling and dominating me.

This is however not the case everywhere in the world. I have for years been renting out apartments to Muslim immigrants, and that has been an eye-opening experience to me. The Muslim women are very shy and timid beings, who often don’t say a word to me. If they say, they seem to be very naive

and undeveloped beings, who  focus on pleasing their husbands and giving birth to as many baby boys as possible. Seeing something like this in front of my eyes is pretty heavy to me.

Few of these women learn Finnish, because they hardly meet anyone outside home. In my home city efforts have been made to create meeting points for these immigrant women, where they could also learn Finnish. Muslim women seldom come there, often because their husbands don’t accept that. If they come, they have a man with them, who controls that wrong kind of ideas are not taught to the women. The Muslim men have problems also. They are stuck in an endless pride and shame swamp. Generally they are people, who are not capable of being in a dialogue, at least not with a woman.

Pelle I’m trying to talk about these kinds of very severe problems. The poor position of women has created the present over population of the planet. These women get appreciation and meaning to their lives only through giving birth to many boys. When I’m trying to voice these problems, you claim the language I’m using perpetuates the feminist misunderstandings.

Why don’t you try to specify, in which ways my language is flawed. What kind of words and language could in a more constructive way describe the problems I see. Also many other people, who have an interest to look at these things, perceive the position of these women very problematic. Claiming me using flawed language, doesn’t help bit in finding ways of seeing these situations differently.

Pelle:I don’t expect one short post in forum to change the mind of anyone, that is why I’m doing this kind of work in a much more systematic way nowadays.


Why should people here start thinking as you do? We all look at things from slightly different angles and bring out our differing perceptions here. I find it to be a tremendous richness to read the posts of people who look at a certain topic from wildly different perspectives. Together these different perspectives are closer to truth, than any of them alone. Often they are complementary ways of looking at things. Only seldom can I spot reasoning that clearly uses erroneous logic.

Irmeli

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

Pelle,  I am trying to make sure I am understanding you.  I agree with what Juliee has written.  Doing the RAM work with men and beginning to see the level of constriction they have been condemned to play in the societal role, makes the need for gender liberation all the more important!  However, men and women have been generally wounded in different ways.  

I have for one have never advocated that feminism was the be and end all for sorting out our present situation.  However, it has been a vehicle that has held strong and heralded the emergence of the female voice.  And I am grateful for it!  

Yes, men have been wounded too!  And as you all find an authentic expression for this, and move into do your healing work, there will be a lot of cheering from many of your female counterparts.  

When you paint the coalminer picture, the man with black lung and the dreary days, the happy woman with everything at home doing her heart’s desire…… well, it is not a balanced picture either.   I have never worked in a coal mining town, so I don’t know the stark reality….but I have grown up in a family where my father went to work as a surgeon, controlled all the aspects of the money, did what he wanted with an utter disregard for the well being of his family.  He made the money and rightly assumed it was up to him to do what he chose to do with it………He had unlimited freedom, and all of us were at his beck and call….(see the Duchess I refered to in my earlier post)  The truth is that many men and women deserve medals for the hardships they survive in providing for their children under difficult conditions.  Men have not endured more hardships than women.  Men have not done more work.  They have, however, worked and endured hardships.  To the degree that they have suffered and been damaged through this dedication, this needs to be lauded.  It seems to me, it has been lauded, but if it has not been enough for you, laud some more.  At the same time, I hope women do the same, continue to do the same, standing up and being counted.    

Pelle, I don’t know if it is accurate, but I always get a sense that you resent the space that women take up in this exploration.  I also get the sense that you believe that women’s voices are heart at the expense of the male reality.   I agree with irmeli, this need not be so.  There is room in this discussion for a lot of perspectives…. and the integral perspective is going to come not from shutting down those perspectives but by having enough people waking up to a new way of being together, not at the expense of one another, but in mutually enhancing relationship.  

Jane

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

The dialogue box has gone all weird again! I hope this works.

I can feel what you are saying Pelle and have felt for some time now that woundedness of men as well as experiencing for myself the woundedness of women. Research I did many years ago into sex-role stereotyping was unequivocal in demonstrating the narrowness of male roles portrayed in magazine adverts of the time, disproving my hypothesis.

In more recent times the group work done with Robert Augustus Masters has shown me the depth of hurt for both men and women, boys and girls giving me great empathy for boys/men even where their issues mirrored the opposite perspective of my own deepest woundings, one which I never thought I would be able to come to terms with.

I think what you are describing could well be the next step and it needs to be taken without minimising the hurt of either male or female, without denying the huge gulf between your vision and the reality of experience as Irmelli is describing with the muslim women she comes into contact with.

That to me would be really valuable work.

Julie

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

Hiya Dudes & Dudettes,

(Now there’s a ‘gender neutral’ statement  {;-)  )

You all are doing such a terrific job of unpacking these complexities. I can feel my neurons stretching throughout my body.

It seem to me that so many of the so-called ‘Gender’ issues are really more developmental issues.

I feel fairly strongly that getting rid of the terms ‘Masculine’ and ‘Feminine’ would just not work well. Although, being more judicious and explanitory in using the terms could go a long way towards clarity in the conversation.

I can feel triggered by some of this conversation and I suspect we all have some at least residual issues around gender relations. But as a friend told me once, “I may have pushed your button, but I didn’t install it.”

I love the care you are all using in this discussion…both my ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ parts feel well considered.

Thanks,

Doug

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

Ok, back to ‘phantom box’ mode - its like shooting in the dark without tracers and having to wait til the next morning before you can edit yer target.

Doug,

I can feel triggered by some of this conversation and I suspect we all have some at least residual issues around gender relations. But as a friend told me once, “I may have pushed your button, but I didn’t install it.”

I got a laugh out of that Doug, not a big one mind you but anything these days is welcome let me tell ya.

I too feel a little triggery in the midst of this profoundly vexacious issue and feel some deep agency rising around what I see to be a confluence of ‘issues’ both evidenced and yet-to-be-acknowledged.

Pelle, I don’t see that anyone is arguing with you that the m/f paradigm is fucked up and needs to be shanked into the dustbin, yet, I strongly doubt that scholarship and insight alone are going to solve the problem - no matter how much it can be tied to semantics and crooked thinking.

This time, this end of the Kali Yuga Era, when all bogus structure sare disassembling, will include the tearing apart of key ‘given’ constructs such as time, race, gender, and creed. My worldview, however integral, is founded on the Saivite non-dual principal that all is feminine, all is Shakti.That includes me, my genitals, deep voice, beard, and thrusting personality.

No one here is arguing that men have not been treated as slaves, just like women. The truth, however, is this: (imo) whether you want to agree with it or not, there is an implanted dominator kulture on this planet that seeks to exploit both women and men. The slight, but profoundly significant difference (again, imo) is that in the hierarchy of minion-to-the-man status, men areup onthe cross getting all the glory for being such self-sacrificing heroes all the time, while women, who risk their lives to put them on the planet, are left huddled on the ground cleaning up the mess.

The m/f paradigm is shaking apart, and that is a good thing. What I see now, in this conversation, is that we are like earthquake survivors trying to reconstruct a new world while still buried in the rubble of the old.

Taking generalized potshots at vestiges of the old paradigm (one of my favorite pastimes, heh heh) is a waste of time.

There is an order to the universe, imo, a natural and pro-evolutionary flow where (god save me) masculine energy serves the feminine, and the feminine in turning service, agonizes the Kosmos into being.

As a doctor, you must have witnessed more than a few births. What is there to dispute about this tantric view?

I hope this new blog of yours goes into some detail about exactly, specifically, where you see the ‘language’ that Jane, Irmeli, I, and others have above perpetuated what you see as ‘the problem.’

best,

Maxie

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

Basically, yes, you don’t tell a bullheaded hyper-masculine corporate exec in therapy to “get in touch with his feminine side,” (indeed many of his issues likely lie in disowning the feminine), but for most purposes mas / fem is useful in describing qualities of ourselves and the world (yin / yang; eros / agape; sun / moon; etc).  I think they have their place, for sure.

Just sayin’

bryan

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

I realize that I may not be coming across as very sensitive. But trust me when I say that I truly get the perspectives that you are putting across (Irmeli, Jane, Michael), and the humanness that is behind those perspectives.

I’m also not saying that men get a worse deal than women, not at all. I don’t even care who gets the worse deal, since regardless of who the “winner” is, we still need an inclusive and integrated way of approaching gender issues.

I’m not trying to be everything for everyone. My work is one of pointing out the one-sidedness of the gender discussion as it is carried on not only in Scandinavia, but in the US and continental Europe too. I do this more on a systemic/political level, and less so on a personal/spiritual level. I think it will be hard for people to heal individually if they are told that one gender is domineering, oppressive, egocentrical and privileged, while the other gender is victimized, subjugated, spineless and altruistic (I don’t think people are saying that here, but pick up a few textbooks on gender studies and start reading).

Anyhow… who has something more to say about the terms “masculine” and “feminine”?

Pelle

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

Pelle, 

The terms Masculine and Feminine have a left lower quadrant reality, an historical perspective…and the above conversation is very important in teasing this out.  It may be messy and not easily put into a dictionary, still, all of this needs to be said, in my opinion. 




It is true that ” it will be hard for people to heal individually if they are told that one gender is domineering, oppressive, egocentrical and privileged, while the other gender is victimized, subjugated, spineless and altruistic”, but sometimes the ‘hard’ part is what is needed.  We need to crawl out from the weight of a perspective and take what is real, and what resonates, and junk the rest…. and to the extent that the above statement is true, well, that needs to be addressed. 




I would also suggest Pelle, that you don’t use ‘feminism’ as the cornerstone to argue against, but rather put out your own, important, discoveries.  They will stand on their own.  And if feminist rotten eggs are thrown at your offerings, well, get curious about them… The truth will prevail here…. From what I can tell, most women are very acutely aware of how men have been truly wounded in this whole situation.  Healing benefits all of us… oh, how we yearn for it!

Jane

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

Dear ones,



Jane, I love this:



I would also suggest Pelle, that you don’t use ‘feminism’ as the cornerstone to argue against, but rather put out your own, important, discoveries. They will stand on their own. And if feminist rotten eggs are thrown at your offerings, well, get curious about them… The truth will prevail here…. From what I can tell, most women are very acutely aware of how men have been truly wounded in this whole situation. Healing benefits all of us… oh, how we yearn for it!



Pelle,I support this paragraph of yours with a minor exception for the last line:

I’m not trying to be everything for everyone. My work is one of pointing out the one-sidedness of the gender discussion as it is carried on not only in Scandinavia, but in the US and continental Europe too. I do this more on a systemic/political level, and less so on a personal/spiritual level. I think it will be hard for people to heal individually if they are told that one gender is domineering, oppressive, egocentrical and privileged, while the other gender is victimized, subjugated, spineless and altruistic (I don’t think people are saying that here, but pick up a few textbooks on gender studies and start reading).



I will bet that some of us ‘here’ (me for instance) have been deep into gender studies quite a bit longer than you have been alive - I urge you to remember that an actualize it as a resource in your work rather than presumptively butt up against it.

cheers,

maxie

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

I would also suggest Pelle, that you don’t use ‘feminism’ as the cornerstone to argue against, but rather put out your own, important, discoveries.  They will stand on their own.  And if feminist rotten eggs are thrown at your offerings, well, get curious about them… The truth will prevail here…. From what I can tell, most women are very acutely aware of how men have been truly wounded in this whole situation

I see your perspective Jane, and that would be one way of approaching the kind of work I do.

The way I see it, there are three important aspects when trying to create something new:

- transcend (this is the new stuff that emerges)

- include (preserve the good stuff from previous levels)

- negate (get rid of that which is clearly unhealthy or simply needs to be replaced at a higher level)

I feel that I need to do all three in my writing, since I feel that I can convey my message most clearly by doing all three. If I always need to refrain from addressing one of these three aspects, then I cannot give a full picture of what I see and believe.

So I will definitely outline the new, and sometimes or even often it will be very relevant to address what the new stuff negates among the old beliefs or principles. The included stuff from the previous levels will always be present in a sense, and sometimes I will specifically address what is good about postmodernism and feminism.

This is the way I’ve chosen to do it because it’s the authentic voice that I can bring to this field. For quite some time I didn’t know exactly how to do it, but this is what has emerged as the authentic thing to do for me. Some people will love it, some will hate it, and some will think I’m from another planet. That’s fine. You don’t debate gender issues if you feel a need to be liked by everyone ;)

I definitely agree that we all yearn for healing, so while we may disagree on the methods, we agree on the end goal :)

Warmly,

Pelle

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

Pelle, I’ve gotta take issue with the way you’re describing growth – transcend, include and negate. I don’t think there’s any negating in true transcendence. Nor do I even think that “include” means only to include the “good stuff” from previous levels. I think that transcend/include means that you include all of the previous levels, but rather than identifying with them, you allow the elements of the previous levels to take their rightful place. So for instance, I don’t need to negate my belief in Santa Clause, but I can let it take its rightful place, seeing it as a symbol of love, generosity, abundance, etc. rather than believing in it concretely and therefore refraining from buying a new TV because I think he’ll bring me one (a lower level relationship to Santa).



So with the issue of transcending feminism, it’s the same thing – taking what feminism has to offer (good and bad) and giving it all its rightful place in our relationship to it. This might mean recontextualizing or reinterpreting certain elements of feminism and/or not identifying as strongly with certain elements of feminism. But I don’t think it’s about negating feminism – it’s about growing beyond the limitations of modern or postmodern takes on feminism.



I agree with a lot of the content of what you’ve said in previous posts, but now that we’re talking about a framework of transcend/include, I wanted to put in my 2-cents’ worth on how I see that process, in regard to feminism or anything else.

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

I get what you’re saying Tely, and to a large extent I agree with you.

But pruning is needed at every level transition, so I cannot go with you all the way. If it’s possible to recontextualize, then I fully agree that that is the best thing to do. But some things are simply wrong, and if you can see that clearly at a higher level, then you negate that. And one day some of the stuff that we believed was the coolest integral stuff in the world, will be negated by higher levels - I simply don’t think it can be avoided…

It’s funny, and now I’m not only addressing you Tely, but everyone… It’s as if there is this great fear or resistance in the air when I talk about negating or challenging certain aspects of feminism. What is this fear rooted in? Isn’t feminism robust enough to tolerate criticism? Will not the healthy aspects of feminism survive by default, since no good arguments that appeal to postmodern (or beyond) individuals can be made to criticize it?

Just thinking out loud,

Pelle

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

Pelle:Isn’t feminism robust enough to tolerate criticism? Will not the healthy aspects of feminism survive by default, since no good arguments that appeal to postmodern (or beyond) individuals can be made to criticize it?

Yes, yes, yes! And it’s from that perspective that I agree with the content of your previous posts. I get that you “get” feminism, and you’re trying to build from there. But when you start talking about negating, that’s when my agency takes over, and I have to step in and say something. :-)

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

Pelle: It’s as if there is this great fear or resistance in the air when I

talk about negating or challenging certain aspects of feminism. What is

this fear rooted in? Isn’t feminism robust enough to tolerate

criticism?

Pelle, could it be possible that you are now projecting out your own resistance?. Why do you perceive Jane, Michael and me, when we are rightfully defending our understanding, as not being capable to tolerate criticism! Why is it resistance, when we defend our understandings.

I asked from you specifications and clarifications on why you saw our thinking as flawed and being perpetuating the problems rather than solving them. First I didn’t get any answer. Then you responded that actually you did not mean there was any flaws in thinking considering those issues brought forth here by us.

I would accept that resistance on my part had been there, if you had truly given some specific answers to my questions, and really tried to present ideas, that would help us more constructively see the problems I described, and I would just bypass or reject your suggestions, without addressing them.

I’m totally perplexed now. You make very hard accusations here. Between the lines I have understood that you consider my posts in this topic to be pretty feministic. I have never been a feminist. I however tend to observe the world with open eyes.

As I’m not too familiar with the gender issues. I would be very much interested in hearing in which ways you consider my thinking to be perpetuating the problems I perceive in relation to the position of women in many cultures.

I am very much interested in hearing about ways to look at those problems I perceive, that would help people in those cultures to transcend those structures, which keep both men and women stuck at red and amber altitudes.

Irmeli

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

Pelle: ”It’s as if there is this great fear or resistance in the air when I talk about negating or challenging certain aspects of feminism. What is this fear rooted in? Isn’t feminism robust enough to tolerate criticism? Will not the healthy aspects of feminism survive by default, since no good arguments that appeal to postmodern (or beyond) individuals can be made to criticize it?”




I am with Irmeli here Pelle, wondering exactly where the resistance is coming from! I am with Michael, in encouraging your work.  I am not concerned for feminism at all. And like Irmeli, I’ve never been a feminist, per se, either.    




However, I am concerned for YOUR work!  I have sat around enough dinner parties where these discussions emerged.  I have witnessed the dog fight….  as defenses are raised and missiles are hurtled.  I am so tired of this kind of discourse.  I don’t care about it anymore.  I have also witnessed men ‘doing their work’ in life, in RAM workshops. THIS has touched me more than anything in realizing just exactly what has been transpiring within our outmoded structures, and what it takes to transcend and include.  




Women have been hurt by the present system.  The ‘faulty parts’ of feminism are not likely to be healed on the level they were produced or by a young man from Sweden writing a brilliant analysis, ‘negating’ them.  They won’t likely be healed by ‘the facts about the way things really were’.  This healing is not an ‘intellectual process’, but a healing of a ‘felt experience’.  It is a healing of trust.  It is a healing of the trust that men really do want to show up real and present and do their work.  It is an enliving and reworking of an alternative to the brilliant statement Cartosyn wrote above, that:  ”men sacrifice relationship for self, and women sacrifice self for relationship.”   Feminism, along with all of its feisty, inflaming warts, has encouraged women to stand up and be counted.  In no uncertain terms, it has challenged women to stop being victims, while pointing out where we have been.  It has challenged each and every woman to have a ‘self’, to know that that self matters, that it contains vital-must-have information, that without this information, the world is literally dying.  It has also challenged men to recognize their responsibilities in relationships, in a way that is not merely self-serving, but holds  the common good at heart. 




Men have been hurt too by the present system, and so far there is largely a blank as to what that wound is about, and what it will take to heal it.  Healing this is not only going to come from changing the external circumstances, though this helps to assuage the ongoing damage being done, but rather by doing the internal work that brings each of us to a more integral wholeness. 




The left lower quadrant will not be denied here! And turning to ALL of it, we find the fuel for our transformation. 

Jane 

PS And unlike Tely, I don’t get that you get feminism.  My sense it that it has pushed your buttons and you are pissed.   And herein lies a place where I might be projecting! 

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

Irmeli and Jane,

I’m sorry, but I don’t feel triggered, even when you accuse me of being resistant :)

I know where I’m at with these issues, I’ve done some very deep work, and the place you accuse me of coming from is a place that I spent many years healing and transcending. I’m simply not there anymore.

Both of you claim not to be feminists, but you are nonetheless using feminist rhetoric and explanations. This is one of the very reasons that inspired me to do this work: that several misunderstandings are now taken to be truths even in the minds of people who don’t self-identify as feminists.

I will not be able to post my work here Irmeli, so it’s not that I’m ignoring your questions. You can read about a couple of my ideas here, but I will also announce my blog very soon, and then you can read about my ideas there.

I appreciate that both of you are engaging this difficult subject, and I’m sure that you will each bring positive change in gender areas that I don’t focus on.

All best,

Pelle

P.S. Thank you Doug for fixing the spacing, and thanks Liz for trying.

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

Pelle, I am not ‘accusing’ you of anything, I am simply telling you what the situation looks like to me.  I hope in your writing work you spend time actually talking about the deep you have done and what you have done to heal and transcend.  I am very interested in this. 

  I now have a sense that you are not interested in engaging much further in this discussion, so I will look forward to reading your work when it is ready to be put forth.  

The ‘here’ takes us back to different places on this thread.  Is that what you intended?

All the best to you too.  I think it is great that you are engaging as you are.

Jane

 

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

Pelle, I fully agree with a lot of what you are saying in the post you gave as link. I have read it before.

And I don’t agree that what Jane, Michael and I have been saying is basically flawed. It is partial, yes, as every perspective is. Uncovering and fighting against  the dominator structures, has helped both women and men evolve a lot. In that sense it has been highly beneficial for the peaceful progress of the western world during the last decades.

And in the developing countries this approach will be also in future very useful.

At some point, which may have been reached in many western societies, a next step, a new approach is needed, which emphasizes the woundedness and trauma that male gender role has created in men.

Different approaches and different cures to perceived distortions are needed at different stages of development.

I think the uncovering of dominator structures works well for pathologies at red, amber, and maybe even orange altitudes. At second tier quite different approaches are more effective.

I think this is what you are essentially aiming at. And I tried to tease it out from you!

Feminist approaches are not generally wrong. They become ineffective and useless at higher altitudes.

I wish you the best in your writing project!

Irmeli

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

Hmm, can a mod fix all the extra lines in my post? I have no idea how that happened all of a sudden…

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

There ya go Pelle.

Just figure this out myself. When you hit the ‘return’ key, there will be a space even though not seen in the text edit box.

My 1st act as a reserve Mod.

Cheers,

Doug

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

Dear Pelle,

I hope that you know that I support your work with all my heart. Your voice is needed, wanted, welcome, and, given the effort you are putting forth to draw on the resources available here in the ol’ IP, as well as what you will undoubtedly glean from every other source available to you, there is no doubt in my mind that what you publish will be, however provocative, a strong addition to the field.

love,

Michael

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

Thank you Michael, that means a lot to me.

Warmly,

Pelle

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

Admin note:

Sorry, I can’t fix the spaces, Pelle et al. New glitch. I’ll make sure it gets reported.

Liz

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

Hello everyone… reading this thread has been fantastic and popped open a new view that has been simmering for a while.

While reading, I wondered about each of our views and how difficult it is to truly see another’s perspective. Pelle and Michael (as examples) are from different generations. Their world views are structured not only by where they live but from the type of world they have know in their lives.

It struck me that when Pelle talks of feminism, it is a very different world view than folks who lived through much of the real structuring of its effects.

Last night, I watch “The Secret Life of Bees” with my daughter and her boyfriend. There is a scene where a young white girl and a young black boy attempt to go to the movies together. (the movie is set in 1964). My daughter didn’t understand why the boy was dragged from the theater and why he was in danger just because he was watching a movie.

Her world view is one that does not really include segregation nor does she really understand feminism, not in the same way we are discussing it here.

We can all agree that not all of us have the same world view, Muslim and Indian woman do not have the same structure that Western woment do and therfore may not be part of this discussion. I guess what I mean by this is, it appears to me Pelle is attempting to write from a view that is not at the same construct level and the discussion keeps change the view from which he attempting to speak.

As for shifting from mas/fem to agency/communion, I wonder about the context and when it would be appropriate to use one set or the other. Attempting to transcend gender is a lofty goal in that most of us are still struggling to truely grok any perspective but our own.

Thank you all for such a rich discussion.

Gina

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

Thanks Gina, this post is packed full of wisdom and perspective! 

Jane

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

Yes, thank you Gina !! For adding those dimensions !!!

And the wisdom keeps rolling in, and does anyone object if I contribute this thread to Collective Wisdom: The Library of Community Threads?This discussionis relatively jargon-free and on a topic that is of importance and interest to nearly everyone.

Gratefully, OM Bastet

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

Gina, thanks for adding that perspective to the discussion. It’s something I’ve discussed at length with a couple of friends, and I even included it when I gave a lecture about gender at my integral salon.

OM Bastet, I’m fine with you adding this thread to the “community library”.

Pelle

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

I would again like to say what a great pleasure it is to be a part of this community and a part of its growth. As a result of all that has happened over the past couple of years, this river of discovery; a torrent at times muddied by anguish and misunderstanding, at times settled by patience when the flow went still, then charged again when one or the other of us would offer ourselves as a vortex point of focus, and the waters, dark, but clarified somehow would pour through this volunteer and great energy would emerge and the lights would come on again and the new landscape downstream would reveal itself and we could all ooh and ah in the bounce of change, paddles ready, open to the wet, pulling in the same direction.

love,

maxie

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

Thanks for this Maxie, & dittoes…

You really touch all three bodies in me with your soul of a poet.

Love back buddy,

Doug

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

Here it is in the Collective Wisdom library. Anyone can go there and comment on the thread as a whole, rather than about the topic or content of it, which should continue to be posted here. Maybe you can suggest more “tags” for it.

Carry on. Dynamite stuff. 

Blessings, OM Bastet

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

I don’t necessarily want to get too involved in this long discussion, but I wanted to make a few comments. 
 
Most of what has been said here is mostly philosophical which is something I enjoy very much.  However, when it comes to complex subjects that are easily biased by various ideologies, I prefer to turn to science for clarification.
 
The MBTI functions of Thinking and Feeling have shown a significant gender difference, and so have Hartmann’s boundary types.  Correlated with MBTI is traits theory (FFM, Big Five) and traits research has also shown gender difference. 
 
I’ve also read that research shows that women tend to have a better spatial sense within the immediate environment and men tend to have better spatial sense over long distances.  OTOH I was just reading that the supposed gender inequality between math and verbal abilities has been debunked.
 
I’ll also mention the book Boys Adrift by Dr. Leonard Sax.  He conjectues that various factors (estrogen-like chemicals, psychiatric drugs, and social values) of modern life have caused biological and cognitive alterations in gender.
 
Marmalade

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

Hi Marmalade,

Thanks for letting us know about gender differences in MBTI and traits theory. Whenever we do testing in adults though, we need to realize that it is likely a mixture of biology and culture. However, if the results hold up cross-culturally (as they often do), then we can be pretty sure that the biological component is relevant.

It’s not true that gender inequality in maths and verbal abilities has been debunked, it’s just that you need to be very specific to spot the differences. Girls are better than boys at mathematical accuracy, whereas boys are better at problem solving. Problem solving is related to systemizing, which likely is a key feature of the “male type” brain. But overall there is no difference in mathematical ability between the sexes.

Women are better at verbal abilities, and the available research still holds up. The only reason you see a lot of male authors is that nature gambles more with men, and in any line of development you’ll usually see that men are overrepresented at the bottom, and at the top.

Pelle

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

Pelle - MBTI has been used in various cultures, but there are problems.  Some issues are creating accurate translation of tests and taking into account various cultural biases and expectations.  Traits theory has been much more extensively researched, and supposedly has proven itself valid cross-culturally. 
 
As the two theries strongly correlate, it wouldn’t be far-fetched to surmise that MBTI probably also has at least some cross-cultural validity.  MBTI Step II has broken the functions down into similar sub-traits as traits theory and so this should clear up future research with MBTI.
 
As I haven’t studied it much, I’ll trust you on what you say about the maths and verbal abilities.  The paper I was reading claimed to be referencing meta-analysis and so I presume was looking at generalities more than specifics.
 
Looking at specifics also applies to traits theory in terms of sub-traits.  Here is a link if you want to read the details:
 
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2031866
 
Marmalade

Re: Defining Masculine and Feminine

Pelle,

While I am all for gender liberation, and discourses of,
one of my concerns with what you are proposing, and I should say, with
the work coming out of Integral Life on this topic.. .is that the
Integral discourse on gender liberation misses two things.

Firstly,
it predominantly appears to reject and dismiss feminist discourses -
and without recognition of the multiple schools, stages and voices of
feminist labels them, as one ‘feminism’ ( my PhD thesis on Integral
Feminism attends to this and you can read a little more about it on my
gaia blog). Rather than including and transcending feminisms limits…
and limits they do have.

Secondly, and relatedly, this discourse
fails to understand that feminist discourses are by definition the
study of women. They do not generally purport to be the study of men
and gender in general. To complain that theyat do not do so is akin to
complaining that studies of racism do not include study of animal
liberation - they are simply different discourses.

I am
certainly all for an Integral Gender discourse, where Integral studies
of the faces and stages of masculinist discourses come into dialogue
with Integral studies of the faces and stages of feminist discourses
… but without genuinely including (and transcending) the limits of
both we are sadly not yet very near.

Best
Sass