Gaia: The Integral Pod - Chapel Perspicacious - Integral Women

Re: Integral Women

http://julieaerwin.gaia.com — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 12:01:47 GMT

Hi Nicole, Red z, Liz and Jane

Its been a long time since this thread was cooking - speaking of which, garlic and ginger soup - yum.

I'm going to start at the very beginning, its a very good place to start (is there a tune there?) and re-read.

Liz, I too am sorry family and South Korea calls. I'll be waiting to hear what you came up with when you see/hear/feel integral women in Sacramento.

Keep meaning to post a question - has anyone been to Seoul? Any recommendations for 'must not miss' things in Seoul?

Juliee

Re: Integral Women

http://riversong.gaia.com — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 17:11:06 GMT

I'm thinkin' maybe I better get myself on over to the workshop....! gotta find Arthur

Re: Integral Women

http://transcend-include.gaia.com — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 17:06:57 GMT

Thank you, Jane, for bumping up this thread. Holy Shit. That's what this thread is. And Juliee, rereading your suggestion that we bring this subject up at the workshop this summer...fills me with some sadness that some of the people who were going to be there will not be. But that's what's arising, and it's a great suggestion which I'm going to remember this time!

Liz

Re: Integral Women

http://riversong.gaia.com — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:09:28 GMT

Feb 11th--I just posted this on my blog....
It is one of those days today, cold and windy. The lake is amorphous whiteness and the horizon is swallowed...... Shivvy is sick and I am making garlic ginger soup for her.
I have been reading the integral women thread....it has popped up again and seems ready almost for another go. I was writing on it a lot last summer, words and passions pouring through my fingers. I was loving too what everyone else was sharing..... Integral Women florescent in the summer moment.

On warm and sunny days, it is really an easy edifice to be an Integral Woman...... powerful Love pours through, Radiance and Strength abound, the Beloved is met at every turn, Compassion issues forth unfettered. These winter days of whiteness and cold are somewhat more challenging, more interesting too. I rub up against my own edges, my vulnerability, my little girlness. I want strong arms around me, and warm soup, and nurturing. I want to be loved not only for being 'all that' but for being 'all this' too.

'All this'.... what is 'all this'?
some thoughts: 'All this' is: A work in progress, an open mind, a gentleness, a timid traveller looking for an already blazing fire and an already set table, a unpredictable sea of swelling and contracting, liquid psyche....unknowingness.

Bob jumps into my head:
"You say you're looking for someone
Never weak but always strong,
To protect you and defend you
Whether you are right or wrong....
Someone to open each and every door.
But it ain't me babe....."

I love Bob. Even though he is surly sometimes, self-centered, he can be seen standing his ground when a little, tepid love would shift the circumstance and dissipate the possibility and collapse the birthing space. And I like that. That quality can open the horizon up to something new and large and evolutionary, yet scary too. .... I think he would be a good partner for Shivvy... she has that certain quality too..... and she sings beautifully, like Bonnie Raitt.... He sings, "I am gonna make a lot of money, Gonna go up north...." Well, it is time he followed through.... well, if you ask me. He would like strolling on the beach up here, and we could use a headline singer at the North West Beach Festival in July.... and I tell ya, my sister is quite a remarkable emergence, even now, when she is sick. No one would want to miss her.

So the soup is done now. Shivvy is coughing.... and I am going to go off for a heroic ski in the bland, frigid whiteness.....back for an afternoon snooze.. and then in again to work emergency tonight--- though the weather will be down and the planes won't fly.....and everyone will be better staying home and sipping ginger garlic soup.

Re: Integral Women

http://singerseeker.gaia.com — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 11:30:59 GMT

Hi Gina,

I know you posted this a long time ago, but I wanted to share that song always touches me very much. I remember listening to it in the days in the hospital following the birth of my first born child when I was experiencing all kinds of mixed feelings and physical reactions - elation and delight in my beautiful new baby, all the physical discomforts and pains associated with just post-partum and beginning to breastfeed, feeling the lows and loneliness of isolation in a room with a small human being who sleeps most of the day... I would hold her close and sing along to this song with tears running down my face, "oooh child things are going to get easier, things will get brighter"...

and they have... my baby girl has grown into a vibrant, intellectual and social 19 year old student of math and applied computer skills at university, who has moved from home and is looking forward to post graduate study... and I too have changed drastically...

Re: Integral Women

http://redzircon.gaia.com — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 03:56:26 GMT

Hi,

I've been lurking on the pod for a while (and I think I just accidentally flagged someone's comment for review when I thought I was bookmarking it--oops! sorry) and I will read to through to catch up on the conversation, but in the meantime, did the whole issue of the integral run out of steam or did it wind up elsewhere?

I really like the idea of integral philosophy as a systematic way to join spheres of thought and activity on many levels and as a way to mark human evolution, wobbly as it is from one person to another. I have a fairly strong background in philosophy, and I think that Wilber gets a bad rap sometimes for making huge logical leaps without including every step, when in fact, if he did it the way many philosophers prove (in an analytic tradition) he'd never get to the point where he could make his point. It's refreshing, sometimes, for someone to make a claim with broad sweeps if you know the homework has been done, and just hasn't all been listed in that particular book. I also think there's been so much talk and writing that it is developing into the kind of useful tool/system it was desgined to be. That in itself is remarkable to me, a paradigm shift in its own right.

That said, I have to confess that the label of "feminine" but less "integral feminine" makes me more than a little . . . itchy. I have yet to find any definition of the feminine that is elastic enough to include beyond stereotype, in a way that encompasses real women, either in Wilber's work or anywhere else.

What's the most useful, broad but intelligent conception of the feminine you have found? Was it written? Spoken? Witnessed?

Red Z.
now ducking back into the darkness to catch up on the thread details

Re: Integral Women

http://FireAngel.gaia.com — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 04:59:37 GMT

I was at dinner tonight with a table full of people. The person sitting across from me was a particularly challenging person with a bag full of bitter to go along with their not so witty repartee. I left early and was doing my best to call my friends and wash myself clean of these rants about the injustices endured. Unfortunately for me, none of the people I tried calling picked up the phone (funny how when you really want to dump your shit on someone else... they just don't pick up the phone)

In this experience, I found myself asking questions of this person about what might be good in their life because it seems so little was found to truly love and so much was wasted regurgitating the bile of experience. and then this came to me

O-o-h child things are gonna get easier
O-o-h child things ll get brighter
O-o-h child things are gonna get easier
O-o-h child things ll get brighter

Someday well get it toghether and well get it undone
Someday when the world is much brighter
Someday well walk in the rays of a beautiful sun
Someday when the world is much lighter

O-o-h child things are gonna get easier
O-o-h child things ll get brighter
O-o-h child things are gonna get easier
O-o-h child things ll get brighter

Someday well get it toghether and well get it undone
Someday when the world is much brighter
Someday well walk in the rays of a beautiful sun
Someday when the world is much lighter

O-o-h child things are gonna get easier
O-o-h child things ll get brighter
O-o-h child things are gonna get easier
O-o-h child things ll get brighter

Someday well get it toghether and well get it undone
Someday when the world is much brighter
Someday well walk in the rays of a beautiful sun
Someday when the world is much lighter

O-o-h child things are gonna get easier
O-o-h child things ll get brighter
O-o-h child things are gonna get easier
O-o-h child things ll get brighter
Right now right now

**********
For us

Re: Integral Women

http://riversong.gaia.com — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 21:01:46 GMT

ah! the man of la mascha..... I know who you are speaking from. I see this man in lots of places. I feel him sometimes. I bow to him. love Jane

Re: Integral Women

http://co-mason.gaia.com — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:30:06 GMT

Hi Jane!

I have myself also gradually come to the conclusion that at least one line of the collective consciousness here is higher than elsewhere. It is how the two genders perceive each other. Is it called the psychosexual line? Here men respect and appreciate women, and vice versa. This one healthy feature in the collective consciousness of a society has powerful positive influences on many other domains in the society.
This respect of women is not a new phenomenon here. I have been looking at old photos and movies and the respect can palpably be felt there. Finland was not the first country where women got universal suffrage (I think it was the third), but here women got also elected into the parliament in the first vote. It tells me that there existed already 1907 a profound trust in the capacities of women.

I have only lately started to realize that this natural respect of women is missing in many other societies and cultures. There women are perceived as sex objects or as mothers and wives, but not as human beings with their own special intrinsic value that is different from that of men's. As you put it beautifully: Not an energy of 'power over', of dominance, of possession, of ego, but of deep chivalry and honouring.

In Finnish woman is 'nainen', power is 'valta', total is 'koko'. When we put these three words together and make it to an adjective we get 'kokonaisvaltainen'. This means integral, or comprehensive! Naisvaltainen means female dominance. The word 'kokonainen' means whole. Our ancestors have truly understood deeply the immense magnitude of true female power. In our language there are no separate personal pronouns for the two genders, just 'hän' meaning both she and he. I have all the time difficulties with other traditions, where ordinary common human qualities are seen either as female or male. I personally feel that the Finnish way of not separating these qualities as female or male is much healthier.

Earlier I was thinking that the weak position of women is typical for societies that are on a low developmental level. Nowadays I'm not anymore so sure about this correlation. I rather think there is a causal relationship. The poor position of women, and their lack of rights is causing a collective pathological developmental arrest in those societies.

The oppression of women is a very severe pathology in a society that causes immense suffering, excessive breeding, and developmental arrest, even regression collectively. Nations like India or Tibet are underdeveloped in the stages in spite of their advanced spiritual traditions because of the oppression of women.

Under oppression women become excessively feminine and subordinate to please the men. They get empowered only through attachment to their children. These women cannot allow their children evolve in stages and become independent from them.

In these societies men also often look down upon women. This disdain is a result of the abuse. People tend to despise people they abuse. The despise is a corollary of oppression and abuse.

Irmeli

Re: Integral Women

http://Mascha.gaia.com — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:20:10 GMT

Irmeli, Lauren, Gitanjali, Jane, Jane, Jane! all of you,

ok, this last bit Jane wrote evoked the Man in me. He rises to the challenge of meeting you. He wants you to be as powerful and uncontrollable and fragile as you truly are. All of you! He's ready to meet you where you are, tears in his eyes for being moved so strongly, stirred into giving you your ancient due. This king wants EVERYTHING FOR YOU, what else can he do when granting this means simultaneously coming into his own magnificent gut-given, god-given power. Sing, women, sing every word into my ear, I'm weeping with raw joy and pain over here. Say what cannot be said, say it all. He is listening to you.

Re: Integral Women

http://riversong.gaia.com — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:28:23 GMT

Irmeli, I really appreciate your views on this. My sense it that the Scandinavian countries have some collective lines of development that are more advanced that the rest of the world. I spent the better part of a summer in Danmark when I was about 20, on my Great Uncle Aage’s farm. I loved walking with him arm in arm through the old forests, he with his walking stick and a palpable sense of delight to be guiding me with care on his arm. My father is like this now too; when I link my hand through his elbow, he springs to attention, as if called to honour and protect, not in a possessive sense, but in a sense of deep appreciation and love. A couple of years ago my father, and I were in the mountains of Ecuador on a medical mission of some sort. We were standing in the back of an open pick up truck holding on for dear life as the driver careened us around high mountain roads that crept up steep cliffs. “I’ll go on the outside,” my father said. “it is not so important if I go over the edge.” I have had a legion of struggles with my father growing up, determined to break out of the prescribed mold that he, my mother, and all of society seemed hell bent for election trying to hold me. Even on the sunny day, high in the mountains, he might not even know that his comment was heard…. But for me, it was at the very least a fledgling song of beautiful healthy masculine energy. It makes tears well up in my eyes to consider this energy. Not an energy of ‘power over’, of dominance, of possession, of ego, but of deep chivalry and honouring. This clean and beautiful energy(male or female) is not forthcoming in the natural order of things in our present culture. To some extent, it may be more easy for women, but even this is damaged often. The unhealthy pattern for women is described in books like “Women Who Love Too Much” by Robin Norwood. When I first read her work, I could see myself and almost every woman around me in these patterns to some extent. As women, as females, the most powerful force in our nature is directed at protecting our babies…. No matter what, even if we have to die doing it. The pain and agony of losing our children is a dark well of grief that is unfathomable. What does it take to gestate and nurture our children in a safe context, to keep our families safe? It is hard-wired in our female human biology that the bare minimal requirements of this context includes a loving and strong man. What happens when this relationship is out of kilter at best and a menace at worst? It has been a shocking dilemma in our recent generations when the polarity and the wounds of both men and women have confounded this context of safety. It is interesting that the time that a woman is most at risk of being battered by her partner is when she is pregnant or has just given birth. In first stage relationships, women often assume the motherly role of caring for their partners, and when this energy is redirected to new babies, odd and sometimes horrifying tensions emerge. I have always been a great advocate of breastfeeding. Lots of times I have watched as this activity has been undermined by male partners who felt threatened by the exclusivness of this maternal-child bonding. I have even had one man say to me regarding his partner’s breasts: ‘those are mine.’ Of course, that was an extreme, yet, there is a similar strangeness that often reveals itself in birthing and bonding of mothers and children. It is a true rift in the order of things when the mother/child bond is ruptures, when addictions to substances, or to men, override the natural order of this love. FASD babies are common here, as are babies born to mothers who have been gas-sniffing through out pregnancies. Perhaps more commonly, there are mothers(women) addicted to relationships with men who do not love them well or supportively. The women are suffering cognitive dissonance…. And make choices that prioritize their relationship with an unsupportive or abusive man, over the wellbeing of their children. It is in this context that children feel the deepest sense of insecurity, and the reverberations of unhealthy male/female polarities begin to seed and take hold of the context of survival. I have watched this in my own family, in my own life. It circles around an almost primordial fear that women have of being abandoned. From a very young age, I set out to overcome this dependency/abandonment issue which I considered to be predominantly a female concern. I wanted it healed in my life! I was not going to depend on anybody for anything. Make no mistake, I was going to be honourable and chivalrous and generous. I choose not to be parsimonious in relationships. AND I would ALWAYS have taxi money. (Taxi money is the ability to pack up at any time and take a taxi home if I was not being treated with love and respect.) Oh, how I have compromised myself anyway…., lingering far too long in situations where I needed to throw in the towel. As well, it is my observation, that this kind of independence does not seem to be attractive to most men. On the one hand, I have attracted men who have not had their own independence and autonomy issues worked out and who have attached onto me for those very reasons. I have also had a lot of women fall in love with me, hetero-sexual women, some of my best friends. This is also an also interesting. It has even occurred to me that in my quest to be healed, I have begun exuding ‘healthy male energy’, which is both attractive and unattractive at the same time depending on the context. And it has also occurred to me that this ‘healthy male energy’ is not my deepest nature, but a reactive energy that has emerged out of my deep frustration of what I see going on around me. I am seeking to get deeper than this, to get beyond my reactivity. The bear image is really interesting. In one of the sessions that I did in my RAM group, I was able to verbalize the grief that I feel that strength/largess and femininity seem to have become incongruent in our present society. This is such an incongruity and disservice to the eternal feminine. Even as I write this, a residual grief emerges, my throat tightens, I feel anger. I am a strong woman. I could kill to protect my children, and would die trying. I think about the mother bear walking in my yard this morning, her right hand cut off, her baby cubs following her around. I think about the idea that Andrew Cohen thinks that women’s strength is somehow less than men’s, and dependent on men’s arousal. Any woman who has moved into power of childbirth, who has had to stand up and protect who and what she loves, knows that the true strength of women is awesome. “Be sore afraid of this strength!” “God is coming and she is pissed.” My work continues to be embodying this largess, this power and strength, this femininity, in a way that reflects what Nelly McClung said: “never explain, never apologize, get the job done, and let ‘em howl!” I have a large body, and it is interesting to practice strutting around in it. A friend gave me a denim miniskirt a while ago, which until last weekend I had in my closet, on a ‘not on your life’ hangar. It was hot, and I put in on to wander around the house. I am presently very tanned and quite fit, and with a little encouragement, a friend and I decided to stroll down the North West River Beach on a sunny Sunday afternoon. Operational instructions: Shoulders back, strut, smile, see what happens! The outcome: “hi Jane, you look great,…” “my brother has a crush on you, he says you’re the best doctor,” “you look so healthy, where did you get all the colour…” “I love your skirt, where’d ya get it?” “come on up here on stage and sing!” In all, it was an interesting experiment. I am going to have to try it out in my green gardening overalls next…. Who knows what I can costume myself in and still get away with! In one of David Deida’s books, “Wild Nights” his tantric teacher says to him, “are you afraid to dance with the big lady?” http://www.deida.info I seem to know what his tantric teacher is talking about, I seem to know who she is this ‘big lady’. Sometimes when I am feeling brave and centered, I feel like I am embodying her, strutting around in her, sending out blessing from her, laughing gently at all the men who don’t know what she is about, or who shrink in fear at the idea of dancing with her….. Oh, all thoughts! And a little action too! This is an adventure out here at the end of the road. Love Jane

Re: Integral Women

http://co-mason.gaia.com — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 17:49:37 GMT

Hi all !

I live in the north, and want to enjoy the short summer fully, and hence spend during the summer a lot of my time in our cottage in the countryside without any net connection. Now I'm just visiting the city shortly. Anyway yesterday I started reading this thread and have enjoyed the writings immensely.

It is often horrifying to see the outcome, when males define, what it is to be female. They seem to think they know it better than the females themselves. But actually they are just talking about their dreams, and the projections of their disowned selves into women. And also about their need to define and control what is appropriate for women, so that they will continue to be submissive servants to men. This is not a new phenomenon. The scriptures of the old traditions abound such projections.

Years ago I got totally pissed off with David Deida, when he was defining what essentially is true feminity. I couldn't recognize myself in it at all. I have never felt the need to be SEEN by all, when I walk to a room. I haven't felt a strong need to dress up etc. Still I feel myself to be feminine, but it is not the kind of feminity, that focuses on pleasing men. And I have never been the kind of woman men dream of, and I have not even been capable of feeling it to be a problem! This may be partly because I met my husband, when I was 17, and married him at 21. I have had also a strong tendency to fall deeply in love with men, even while I have been married. However I never started a physical relationship with these infatuations. When my feelings started to fade, there was always a new one already smoldering. I found no problem with that. The falling in love just spontaneously appeared. I had not been flirting with these men, or focusing on being sexually attractive. And I have never used my sexuality to get something from these men.

Andrew Cohen's idea of females having especially difficult in giving up their attachment to their sexual power is really weird. The women, who for some reason have been attached to their sexual power over men, usually have to give it up, when they get older. And they survive. AC must have lost his reality check in this point!

Women have also always found simple delight in being each other's company. For 17 years now we have been once a week gathering with my female friends, doing something we call chatter yoga. We do some physical exercises, then some yoga asanas, and all the time we chatter, or talk about whatever spontaneously comes to our minds, or is bothering us. It can be also gossiping. We have no problems with that either. It takes around two hours each time, and we find it very refreshing. And there is a profound level of trust and transparency among us. This is a traditional way for women to function. In our group we have just exchanged the knitting to physical exercise. Here also AC shows poor knowledge of women's traditional ways of functioning together.

AC also says: "Another result of these primal defense structures is that women often are shape-shifters; they are constantly changing their position and morphing to fit into the different situations they find themselves in, never quite willing to put all the cards on the table." I can recognize myself pretty well in this pattern, but my understanding of the motive to behave this way is quite different from AC:s ideas of women's need to manipulate the environment to get it their way,.(His interpretation may be true for the lower stages.)

I have sometimes considered myself to be a chameleon, changing color depending on my company. I don't want to force people adopt my reality, because I understand that they cannot! Instead I tune in to their reality, and communicate in the level of their world. I do not try to change them. Occasionally however a crack may appear, as always in a good dialogue, when we may help each other to widen our horizons. In the modern western societies people inhabit many kinds of worlds, and hence my shape shifting. In this way I can have a good discussion with a fundamentalist Christian, a communist, an orange meme materialist, a person inhabiting a mean green meme etc. If men are more straightforward in these matters, it is because of their weaker social skills, and the result is less enjoyable communications.

I noticed in this thread also complaints that men tend to ignore or belittle the female voices. I have no personal experiences in this. It may be however due to cultural differences. I live in Scandinavia, where women have been traditionally strong and more independent. I have never observed that something I have said has been ignored just because I'm a woman.

My observation is rather that women are linguistically more skilled than men, and they have easier to express themselves, their ideas, and especially their emotions.

In Finland we have had from the year 2000 on once a year a weekend seminar where people from different spiritual organizations meet to discuss certain spiritual themes (each time different ones). First somebody gives an introduction on the theme. Then we are randomly divided into groups of six to seven persons to discuss the theme. In these discussions we are not allowed to lean on any dogma or authority.

During a weekend we usually have four different themes and group settings to discuss in.

I think men and women participate these seminars equally in numbers, but women seem to dominate in the discussions. They have clearly easier to articulate themselves, when iwe are not allowed to lean on some theory or dogma.

Once during such a discussion three of us women got really wings under us, and we forgot for a while to give space to the other group members to express themselves. When finally a man got his voice through, he lamented about the women's tendency to dominate the discussions. He also explained that he experiences the same problem in his job. The he said: The worst would be to born as a female in a Muslim culture. The second worst is to be born as a man in Finland!

Irmeli

Re: Integral Women

Mon, 23 Jul 2007 05:33:06 GMT

Dear All,

I'm really heartened to see this discussion on women, men and sexual attractiveness here. My own experience has been a beautifully woven mixture with much ego-pain and ego-satisfaction: both the experience of attracting attention and of being ignored. I see that this outward orientation whether it's the ego-pain or ego satisfaction has been one -if a major --aspect of an overall ego-orientation that I have had. What draws me more and more powerfully (41 years on in my life) is the soul-driven life. And your hearts and souls here on zaadz are part of that beckoning...

Having lunch with a dear male friend today I asked him about the male tendency to respond so sharply and painfully exclusively to physical beauty in women: why is it so? We had a great discussion full of soft (and firm) approaches to the issue.

He spoke of Beauty as a divine attribute that both men and women respond to. But many if not most men see Beauty in very limited set of people until they become more integrated in that area.

When a man is aroused by a physically beautiful woman many of us may think that it is only a sexual response they are having and get angry with him for being so superficial. It is not, said he. Even the men themselves don't get that it is not. It is at base a spiritual response and we cannot forget that even as we look at how this impulse is distorted and narrowed in its coming to the surface. The impulse itself is to be honoured even as we women express our pain that most men see Beauty only in a few of us; and that the range of responses to that mostly include fragmented, agonisingly painful and scary ones (I think of the man who menaced young Jane; the have me a hooker mentality).

Both most men and most women have not claimed their power to see Beauty more deeply. Women too, for we get angry at men for their inability in this area but how many of us truly get our beauty? This is a lifetime journey for many women. I speak from my own journey of integration as a woman. And I want to hear men speak of this too - wherever they are in that process? What has been the creative outcome of that for them?

I sense that the soul won't let integral men or women rest with narrow conceptions of beauty. It will confront them with the pain of their unhealed un-integral vision in this area of life again and again. Men who privilege physically beautiful women over all others feel it once the relationship starts going along in its process. And women who live by their sexual power feel the emptiness of that as the relationship progresses. It's a hook with a powerful seed of unspiralling in it when a woman and man rely too much on the Beauty-Power exchange.

If Cohen and Ken and other men and women in the spiritual movement still see beauty in a very limited way - it reflects and perpetuates a profound hurt, a knot as Jane says, in their interior lives. It's taken a journey to get to that level of understanding for me.

A curtsy
Gitanjali

Re: Integral Women

http://riversong.gaia.com — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 23:41:10 GMT

Liz, I love that essay too. It is in his book, 'Freedom Doesn't Mind Its Chains'.... a great book! Maybe Andrew and Ken could go to his Boulder workshop.... now that would be worth the price of admission!. Jane

Re: Integral Women

http://transcend-include.gaia.com — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 17:34:49 GMT

Andrew and Ken need to read this by Robert Augustus Masters, "Taking Charge of your Charge." Both have displayed the kind of projection that RAM talks about and could use a good whack on the knuckles from this particular teacher.

Liz

Re: Integral Women

http://transcend-include.gaia.com — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 16:40:33 GMT

Lauren, Gina, Jane et al: you're saying everything so well, I don't feel the need to add to it much. I do, however feel the need to say, "Me, too," in light of recent developments, and of the fact that I've been reading along without comment so far.

I've gotten the feeling all along that KW doesn't agree privately with AC as much as he seems to, and that he goes along for the sake of "integral." Maybe that's wishful thinking. But AC has never struck me as anything but a complete wanker. WTF, indeed.

Liz

Re: Integral Women

http://plums.gaia.com — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 16:30:42 GMT

Hi y'all,

Dropping in right now to give credit where credit is due. The above quote was Andrew Cohen in the most recent The Guru & the Pandit dialogue with Ken.

Jane:
"When the world leaders on integral philosophy and evolutionary enlightenment are willing to publicly put forth that a woman’s power is dependent on her man’s sexual needs/wants/capacity/impotence, it is almost time to close the book and do some serious soul searching. It just ain’t good enough."

Yes, its a terrible disappointment, and my emotional response is similar to yours, Jane. Reading Andrew's words I found myself appalled at his seeming ignorance. "Men have physical strength. Women have sexual power. What do men want? Men want sex. When a woman realizes that, she finds her own power. And that's a lot of power to have in this world."

Does he really think in these reductive terms? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Maybe Andrew is speaking to the legitimate issue of the attachment to sexual power that a sexually attractive woman has and the obstacle to realization of the authentic self that this attachment creates. But to centralize this point in his thesis about "women, enlightenment, and the evolution of culture" indicates that he's not saying "this is an issue with some women; this is one dynamic with some relevance..." but rather this is at the heart of the challenge that faces all women. And it is simply so ill-conceived. From a place of distorted and partial perceptions and flimsy (or shall we say flaccid) logic a universal decree issues. What a spectacular failure of intelligence!

I imagine that Andrew is an intelligent man. WIE is an interesting publication. I like the students of his that I've met. I'm not drawn to him as a teacher; I've not felt any compelling resonance in my encounters with him. But I did not expect to be quite so disappointed with his "insights" and analytical capabilities. I did not quote the beginning of the dialogue (I couldn't find it online, so I had to type in what I wished to share most; I wish I had a link to the whole piece) but Andrew's thesis from the beginning had little resonance for me at all. A lot of it displays such poor logic, I wonder at how he didn't realize that in publishing this dialogue he was revealing, more than anything else, his own glaring blind spots and his narcissistic eagerness to be at the center of the solution of a problem that he (partially) invented. He seems to make a lot of big assumptions, and then without needing to investigate and determine the credence of those assumptions, uses them as the foundation of his theory. I am reminded of Freud's theory of female hysteria. Here's another excerpt from the same dialogue:

"... So that was really my introduction to the fact that men and women face different challenges on the path to evolution beyond ego. When I started digging into this, I began to see that there are all kinds of obstacles that women particularly face that have to do with biological and cultural conditioning. There are, for example, many very primal reasons that women compete, consciously and unconsciously, that make it difficult for them to trust each other enough to let go of ego and just be together in a context that is not personal. Of course, women by nature are very relational -- they can take care of their family, support their friends, and they do, it seems, hold the world together for us all -- but if they are asked to come together and just be, they often experience a profound sense of panic.

I've thought a lot about where this seemingly irrational fear comes from. I've tried to imagine what it would be like, for example, to become aware, at a very young age, of the fact that half your species has the power to physically overwhelm you at any moment. What would it be like to feel that vulnerable. That's an experience a man almost never has. On an almost preconscious level, women experience a state of visceral biological vulnerability that is just not part of the male experience. When I started to really contemplate this, it became apparent to me that once a woman had realized that she was physically so vulnerable, she would have to come up with a way to protect herself that wasn't physical. So I realized -- and of course I'm making generalizations here -- that the ego-structure or self-structure in women, even more so than in men, is used as a defense mechanism -- a means to self-protect, to manipulate, and to control.

This structure, which once served an important function, now inhibits, in a very fundamental way, women's capacity for authenticity. A lot of this isn't completely conscious, but women learn early on how to keep themselves emotionally and psychologically safe. For example, they seem to have an inner place they can retreat to when they want to protect themselves, where they just cannot be reached. And I can imagine this is a capacity that probably developed in women's consciousness a long time ago so that even if she could be physically overwhelmed at any time, even if they could have her body, they could never have her soul. All women still have this place of retreat, which for most men I know just isn't available. Another result of these primal defense structures is that women are often shape-shifters; they're constantly changing their position and morphing to fit into the different situations they find themselves in, never quite willing to put all their cards on the table. Women create a world of appearances and manipulate their environment and other people in order to have their way and get through life. It's a completely different way to operate than the way men usually do. Men, in this sense, are more straightforward -- it's much easier to know who you're dealing with. When you ask women to be straight and simple and nonmanipulative, they find it very difficult. And I don't think it's because they're cognitively incapable of being straight of that this shape-shifting is inherently part of their nature. I think it's part of a defense structure in the self.

So when it comes to evolving beyond ego, the fact that the self-structure has these built-in defense mechanisms, which were originally born out of biological necessity, is something that women have to reckon with. When facing into the whole notion of enlightenment or emptiness of self, I think women are asked to give up a lot more than men. Of course, men are also terrified of transcending their own pride, narcissism, and arrogant self-importance -- they also experience an existential fear of ego death or ego transcendance -- but they don't feel, on a visceral level, that 'if I let go of my ego I'm physically going to die.' But I've realized that because of the survival-driven roots of the female ego structure, women often do feel -- and this is not necessarily conscious -- that 'if I transcend my ego, I'll have no way to protect myself,' which on a very deep emotional level translates as 'I'm physically going to die.' "

There's much to say, much to question.

For example, is this true?
"Of course, women by nature are very relational -- they can take care of their family, support their friends, and they do, it seems, hold the world together for us all -- but if they are asked to come together and just be, they often experience a profound sense of panic."

Not in my experience. I have found that most people, when offered the opportunity to just come together and be, resist, aren't interested, perhaps panic in some contexts. I've not experienced this any more with women than with men.

Is this true?
"Of course, men are also terrified of transcending their own pride, narcissism, and arrogant self-importance -- they also experience an existential fear of ego death or ego transcendance -- but they don't feel, on a visceral level, that 'if I let go of my ego I'm physically going to die.' "
I think that the universally human experience of existential fear of ego death often, but not always, translates as "I'm going to physically die."

Is this true?
"'ve tried to imagine what it would be like, for example, to become aware, at a very young age, of the fact that half your species has the power to physically overwhelm you at any moment. What would it be like to feel that vulnerable. That's an experience a man almost never has."
If we're talking about rape here, women fear it more. But I seriously doubt that men almost never experience the terror of feeling physically vulnerable. Maybe some. And maybe for many it's a sublimated fear, as it often is for women as well. But I've seen men fearing for their lives, for their physical safety. I've heard them speak the fear. I'd love to hear some of the men here speak up on this one though. Maybe I'm assuming too much.

Is this true?
"All women still have this place of retreat, which for most men I know just isn't available."
Not consistent with my experience. Again, I think it's a human capacity. I don't understand Andrew's logic. Men don't retreat, to protect themselves, into a place "where they just cannot be reached"?

And this, is this true? His observations, his assessment of what it means, his assumption that "straight" trumps changeable in the hierarchy of value, depth, and significance?
"Another result of these primal defense structures is that women are often shape-shifters; they're constantly changing their position and morphing to fit into the different situations they find themselves in, never quite willing to put all their cards on the table. Women create a world of appearances and manipulate their environment and other people in order to have their way and get through life. It's a completely different way to operate than the way men usually do. Men, in this sense, are more straightforward -- it's much easier to know who you're dealing with. When you ask women to be straight and simple and nonmanipulative, they find it very difficult."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Back to Jane:
"When the world leaders on integral philosophy and evolutionary enlightenment are willing to publicly put forth that a woman’s power is dependent on her man’s sexual needs/wants/capacity/impotence, it is almost time to close the book and do some serious soul searching. It just ain’t good enough."

Like I said, I'm with you in the terrible disappointment. And I agree it ain't a good enough awareness (neither accurate, wise, nor insightful), still, it IS.
Furthermore, I can't speculate what Ken's thoughts are about Andrew's theories. He didn't exactly respond in a manner that connoted his agreement, but damn, I didn't see his sword of discrimination swinging either. He didn't seem offended by Andrew's lack of perceptiveness, nor by Andrew's presumption that his perceptions were accurate; he did not challenge his theories. That too is disappointing.
But, here we are.

As Jane said: "(we have gone through) all manner of mental gymnastics trying to understand what it is that men don’t really get." This dialogue is so fascinating because it highlights some of the fundamental false assumptions and perceptions that may be at the heart of our failures to get through to each other, and more importantly, to wholly accept and honor and love each other, to live in the exquisite balance of yin and yang, to build cognition and social structures and technologies and relationships and economies and healing modalities and cultural rituals and art and spiritual practices that embody this balance.

I'll speak for myself: I want to understand what men really think and feel. I am hoping and suspecting that many of the men here will not be in accord with Andrew's overall perspective. I suspect many if not most of the men on this forum are more interpersonally saavy and self-aware with regard to gender structures and consciousness. Nevertheless, I bet that some of Andrew's assumptions point to a collective deep structure of consciousness that is pathological, in that it is founded on misperception and fear of the Feminine. We've all been imprinted with it. How we respond to that fact is in each of our hands.

Gina asked: "Can we even begin to really explore all of who we are when women in our world are not even considered human?"
For me the answer is YES. We can. By connecting with your true personal power, fully developing and honoring its feminine dimensions as well as its masculine ones. And by orienting your awareness to the true north of the authentic Self. By knowing that no human mind can define You.

And also by remembering, we are in continual inescapable relationship, and we all stand to become much more skillful in that realm, women, men, gurus, and pandits alike. Some more than others, of course, but we're all in need of more relational awareness, and the magnanimous qualities of equanimity, humility, and loving kindness will serve us all well on this path.

Jane again:
"In the end we realize that whether men understand and can actually fully meet a women of power, well, that is not on our side of the street, it is not in our control. At the same time, whether we fearlessly and boldly and compassionately embody this power, well, this is our responsibility."

Love,
Lauren

Re: Integral Women

http://FireAngel.gaia.com — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 04:38:45 GMT

Thanks Jane,

I started dancing at a very early age and have found it to be a place of connection, power and expression. It has never really been about dancing with anyone else... I have selfishly kept this passion all to myself and find it difficult to share with anyone. I have danced with others and love the communion but ultimately, I find it is a solitary place.

However, I recommend wild abandon every chance you get!

Re: Integral Women

http://FireAngel.gaia.com — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 04:32:27 GMT

Wow and wow.

Let's see figuring out that men want sex and women have the power is the answer to women's ‘real' power in the world?? WTF?

Ask any woman in Afghanistan if that is true for her. What the hell kind of view is this article written from anyway?? I have been reading Eve Ensler's newest book (only a few pages in) and the frightening world view of woman's power and role is digging under my skin.

If enlightenment is a natural state or a more authentic way of expressing our humanity, then the sixty-four-thousand-dollar question is: What would be the most natural, most unselfconscious, most authentic way to relate to every aspect of life, including the sexual impulse?

This is the BIG Question?? Hmmm.... If it hadn't been mixed in with all the taint of male/female sexuality, I might give it some more of my time. But I can't help but think that the sexual impulse is so much more a man's ‘cross' to bear. There are way too many women in the world that have little or no power regarding their sex, gender or existence and to keep us in a corner .... well, you know. Can we even begin to really explore all of who we are when women in our world are not even considered human?

What does it mean to be an Integral Woman? I just have to keep asking.

Re: Integral Women

http://Mascha.gaia.com — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 20:45:09 GMT

Great. Wake up and roar! Yes, powerful and rousing and soul-stirring stuff, y'all! Encouragement pouring forth in spades over here.

Great good shouting into the storm... Still, from where I'm sitting, it will take several generations to get this ball rolled into an avalanche and squarely hitting the majority of the male population. Men need the equivalent of women's emancipation, but their route to wholeness is not the same. We know what's required, we all agree; even the more educated men generally do -- to a degree.

Now what, though?

My best answer is, keeping it small. Starting at home, with me, with ourselves, every hour of every day. How are we colluding in this sordid state of affairs where women are routinely belittled, invalidated, intimidated and so on? Let's look around an obvious starting place: these forums here. How is it possible for us to allow this behavior towards women posters and then go forth responding with what sounds like encouragement for being treated with less than a respectful, non-sexist tone, or undertone or even whiff of same? Skillful means, I suppose will be the answer that will be given here. Speaking only for myself, I feel alienated, and I'm not buying the skillful means rationalization entirely, while at the same time, I can perfectly understand the twisted moves we all make, and I can definitely, from a deep place of pain inside me, relate to it as "the best we can do"... for now.

M