Making peace with femininity

[divine focus]

This is an excerpt from Love and Awakening by John Welwood.

All life is pulsation, continually moving in waves between opposite poles: rising and falling, intensifying and releasing, coming into form and dissolving into space. The sun's life-giving energy is born of the interplay of centrifugal and centripetal forces. Similarly, our heart keeps us alive through a cyclical flow of drawing blood in and pumping it out again. In every aspect of creation, the pulse of life alternately contracts and expands, gathering in and radiating out.

These two poles of life are present in both sexes as the feminine and masculine principles. Masculine and feminine are much broader terms than male and female, which refer to the two genders. The masculine pole--which the Chinese call yang--is the principle of centrifugal force, expansion, separation, individuation. The feminine or yin principle manifests as centripetal energy, in-gathering, grounding, cohesion, and relatedness.

In the ancient Chinese view of the genders, men generally contain a larger proportion of masculine, or yang energy, while women generally contain a larger proportion of yin. An early Chinese medial text spells out the basic principle: "As a male, man belongs to yang; as a female, woman belongs to yin. Yet both, male and female, are products of two primary elements, hence both qualities are contained in both sexes."

Since the masculine and feminine energies are equal and essential halves of life, every person needs to embody and integrate both in order to be fully human. Many sacred traditions regard this inner marriage as one of life's greatest accomplishments.

Our feminine or yin nature is basic ground: It is the water of life, the in-breath, the egg in the womb, the source of nourishment. The Tibetan traditions see the vastness of open space as the cosmic Mother. Out of the womb of space all things issue forth. That issuing forth is the masculine principle. Just as the heart's contraction sends blood out through our arteries, the feminine in-gathering and collectedness gives birth to outer action. Unless we are open to the nourishment of the feminine, we have little of substance to give forth.

D.H. Lawrence writes, "In an age that, like ours, has lost the mystery of power, and the reverence for power, a false power is substituted." The mystery of power--how strange this phrase sounds in a culture where authority seems to belong to those who use money, technology, or weaponry to dominate and exploit. True power is a mystery because "it is given to us, from the beyond." Unfortunately our culture has little understanding of the yin half of power--how genuine authority can only spring from opening and surrendering to life.

[brokenhead]

Dan: Hmm, if my mother had a basement, I'd probably live there.

Uni: Who wouldn't?

I probably would, as long as there was a way to access it without going through the rest of the house, and as long as she didn't have a key to said basement.

-

I wouldn't. I don't even know Dan's mother.

[divine focus]

This is a dialogue from the same book, Love and Awakening.

This dialogue took place after a talk at a men's center where I presented some of the ideas discussed in the previous chapter. (Bold italics represent comments from women in the audience.) [Regular italics represent the men.]

Even in the most tender, sweet, significant moments with women, I find I'm often asked to do something again, to put out, to please, to come up with something for them. When my lover says, "Tell me I'm beautiful," or "Tell me what you feel," part of me wants to go along with that because she needs it, and another part of me says, "Hey, that's not my job. I don't want to have to make her feel good." So what is appropriate action at that point?

Well, if she puts expectations on you in a demanding way, she is probably trying to use you to fill some hole in herself.

We're all good enough at marketing adn sales to demand things in subtle ways.

Are you objecting to a woman asking anything of you? What's the problem for you?

I just don't get it. I don't get the role that I'm supposed to take as a man, as a lover. Am I her father? Am I her lover? Am I her friend? Where am I?

What I'm struggling with as a woman is how to express my needs to men. I run the whole gamut from, "Maybe I should be more soft and yielding, and not insist on anything, maybe I am being too confrontive with this poor guy," to "Maybe it's time to split up because I'm beating my head against the wall, we've been in couples therapy six months, and nothing's changing."

What's the solution for women? I've worked hard at communicating with my partner in a nondemanding way. I try to make "I statements" instead of focusing on what he's doing wrong, and I try to soften my tone. I think I'm doing everything right. I'm really trying.

I believe you.

Thank you. But I'm beginning to think that maybe I need to leave a relationship sooner when I've tried everything and my needs are still not being met. I hate doing that, I don't want to be alone. But maybe some male egos are not comfortable with my level of energy.

That may be true.

Sometimes the whole thing seems so hopeless.

Yet no matter how bad is seems, if you can open to what you're feeling in the hopelessness--a certain grief, fear or anger perhaps--that will put you in touch with the real issue for you here. That's the beginning of finding your path--what's right for you in the situation.

Men also need to learn to stay connected with themselves when they hit their wall of hopelessness, when they say to themselves: "I don't know what she wants. I don't know how to give her what she wants. This is all too much for me. I can never give enough. An what I do give is never good enough." When we hit that wall, instead of either trying to please the woman or refusing to give her what she wants, we could feel the raw edge of what is being touched inside us. That will help us stay present, with is where we will find the resources we need.

I'd like to hear from you as a woman what is happening for you when you ask things like, "Tell me I'm beautiful, tell me you love me, or tell me how you feel."

What I often find missing in my communication with men is a heartfelt quality, a language of feelings. That is the language I live in. To have a relationship with someone who doesn't speak that tongue, and who doesn't see the value of it, feels like being colorblind, or like seeing a movie without the soundtrack. I'm willing to learn the language of men, but I want a man to be willing to learn my language as well, to be conversant in it, so that our relationship is not just one-dimensional. I need to know that I can invite a man to step into another world and that he would value that.

You say that you're learning the language of men, but Im' curious about what you think the language of men is. For example, there's a real difference in the way that men and women communicate their caring. I often express my caring through actions rather than words. Maybe action is our language. Sometimes it's hard for my partner to appreciate that. For instance, she tends to underdress, and I always carry a jacket for her when we go out, but she usually doesn't appreciate that this is my way of expressing caring. It's not enough. I have to keep telling her, "You're beautiful, I really care for you."

You might try taking that situation as a mirror: If your woman is always wanting to know if you love her, maybe this also reflects something going on inside of you. Is it possible that your feminine side is also needing more attention, more cherishing, more recognition from you?

On the inner level, if men don't value their yin nature--the tender, sweet, delicate part of themselves--this makes it hard for them to cherish a woman. Maybe it's appropriate sometimes for a man to praise and adore the lovely qualities of a woman. Maybe when she asks for that, it's not just an ego trip on her part. Maybe it's fitting for the yang in a man to radiate appreciation and for the yin in a woman to receive that, just as it may be fitting for the yin in a woman to admire and respect a man's yang strength. Maybe this is part of the lila--the sacred play--between men and women. Maybe a man can only learn from a woman, and receive the teachings she has to offer, when he honors her like this.

Yet when a woman asks for this, a man will feel disempowered if he sees himself as a child whose mother is nagging him to be thoughtful and considerate. If we can pay attention to what is happening inside us at these moments, instead of just projecting and reacting, then we can speak our truth instead of feeling resentful or compromised. For example, we might tell our partner, "Here's what's true for me: When you ask me to tell you I love you, I hear that as a demand. Maybe that's not how you mean it, but that's how I take it. And then I wind up feeling trapped and claustrophobic. I want you to know I love you, but I need to let you know that in a way that feels spontaneous and authentic."

But what if a woman wants me to be in my heart, and I just don't feel that way? Maybe she made me feel bad yesterday and I don't want to tell her I love her today. If I say that to her, she's not going to understand me any more than I can understand her need for me to be in my heart.

What's she not going to understand?

You're saying that when she wants something, I need to get down, speak from my insides, and respond to her in an honest way. But that's not always going to be what she wants to hear.

Possibly, but how can you be so sure?

I've been married twice.

Why would she not want to hear what's true for you?

How do I know? Ask the women.

No, you've been married twice--tell me.

Because the woman is asking for something that I'm not good at communicating.

I understand what you're saying. But it also sounds like you're hardening your position and making a solid identity out of it. Maybe you're reacting out of a belief that you are deficient in this area--and that keeps you from being willing to explore new territory.

If you have a hard time expressing feelings, you could at least start by acknowledging that, instead of making a woman wrong for what she wants. If you can be honest about your struggle, she will often respond and love you for that, even if you are not giving her what she initially asked for. At least some real meeting is taking place--and that is what she wants, ultimately. A woman wants to feel a man's energy in contact with hers.

A woman wants to know that we can be present--as ourselves, and with her. Her way of saying that might be, "Tell me more about your feelings." But what she's really asking is, "Are you here?" If we can say, "Yes, I'm here," the rest will probably work itself out.

Often when a woman expresses some desire or frustration, a man's initial response is to think, "Oh, my God, how can I make her feel better? How can I fix this for her?" But when we try to fix what is happening, we move into the busy, controlling part of our mind and leave our heart behind, which only makes things worse.

Some men who have had bad experiences opening themselves to women have concluded, "Women say they want you to show them your feelings, but when you do, then they don't respect you." That can happen sometimes, especially if the woman feels threatened by the man's feelings. But I have not found this to be generally true, either personally or in working with couples. When it does happen, it's often because a man has become totally identified with his feelings, or overwhelmed by them, instead of simply acknowledging them. Though he's expressing his feelings, he's lost his ground and is not really present in himself. And being present--rather than being emotional--is what allows real intimacy to happen.

I'd suggest that you try sharing your truth with your partner, instead of reacting so defensively. Then you might discover that that is what she really wants to hear.

But it seems she can never get enough of it.

That's right! That's right, nobody can get enough of it--real connection, based on being genuine and truthful.

It's just that we go at it in different ways.

That's right. So what's the problem?

Women know what they feel. And they have no trouble talking personally with each other, even if they're complete strangers. Men don't do that. Maybe we're starting to, but we don't allow ourselves to do that.

RIght! That's the whole point: We don't allow ourselves to do it. If we don't know what we feel, it's often because we don't let ourselves listen to the pulse of life flowing deep within us. Can you imagine a world where most men cherished and tuned into their inner life? Can you imagine how that would change everything?

When we open to our inner reality, we discover a deep wellspring inside us. A man who is cut off from his inner feminine is dry. That's why men often have a hard time talking to each other--we're so dry inside. When we open to the inner feminine, there's a warmth, and moistening, and fullness that wells up, like an oasis in the desert.

When our yang strength works in partnership with that delicacy and tenderness, we develop a much deeper power than the dry, brittle hardness of men who are cut off from their inner life. This is the inner marriage and communion that our world so desperately needs.

[Philosophaster]

Always need a helping hand don't you? Don't worry I'm sure Philo will be here soon enough to hold your hand.

Quick, Nat, let's hold hands! :-D

[Unidian]

Okay, but not in a gay way. No interlaced fingers - don't even try.

[Dan Rowden]

I guess the only question remaining is who owns the dominant hand

[Unidian]

We alternate periodically, so that nobody is left feeling too feminine-minded.

[Faust]

What is a 'misogynist' and why would they be one?

Use a dictionary. There are many of them on the Web. And "they" can't be "one." The first is plural, the second singular.

the dictionary provides a piss poor definition of misogyny. I consider misogyny to be not some vague and misleading concept as 'hatred of women,' but more of 'having contempt for women's feeble mindedness.' "hatred of women" simply doesn't explain anything and makes it even more misleading, "having contempt for women's feeble mindedness" is what intellectual misogyny is.

She asked how I conclude that misogynists hate women. I never concluded that - that is what the definition is. Again, use a dictionary.

soooo, do you believe misogynists exist or not? And what's your definition of it?

It seems to me that you can't accept that women are much more disabled to be enlightened than men.

I see men and women to be equally so "disabled," to be quite honest. To think otherwise is delusional.

false. I believe men are more capable of being less deluded. It's the capability and the desire that matters. You would have to do a thorough experiment that tries to find a quantitative difference in the sexes.

Look around you, everywhere women live in HERDS with each other

They are parasites and vampires, leeching off of men for their self-existence.

Which is it? Do they live in herds with each other, or do they live with men, leeching off them?

it's both and it happens whenever one group is more unconscious. They live in herds with each other when they're around each other and when they're more unconscious than men. If men are more unconscious, then women are able to become parasites and vampires. I don't see any conflict between women being herds to society, and leeching off of men in a herdlike mindless fashion.

Yes there are smarter women than others, yes some women care about things more than others, but it's still lacking, just like men, but quantitatively worse.

Let me guess. You are a male.

What is your point? Quantitatively, women probably care less about important things. And I mean truly care, not put up a show with makeup.

The minute you begin blaming groups of which you are not a member for the ills in the world is the minute you succumb to the worst delusion of all. What you are doing is saying "It's all their fault," thereby relieving yourself of any responsibility for making improvements in the world we all live in.

actually, I don't blame all problems on women. If you actually read my post you would see that I also blame men and know men to be very unconscious as well. I'm merely saying that women are just worse, they don't value anything, nor do much of them actually want to improve things. Men don't value alot of things either, but again, you have to quantify it.

females are credulous and uncritical

Females are not critical? Obviously, you have never lived with one!

that's not the type of "criticalness" I'm talking about. I'm talking about intellectual and philosophical criticalness, not about putting the toilet seat down :)

[Shahrazad]

Faust,

the dictionary provides a piss poor definition of misogyny. I consider misogyny to be not some vague and misleading concept as 'hatred of women,' but more of 'having contempt for women's feeble mindedness.' "hatred of women" simply doesn't explain anything and makes it even more misleading, "having contempt for women's feeble mindedness" is what intellectual misogyny is.

Are you admitting that you are a misogynist, by your own definition?

.

[Unidian]

I don't think it would be an "admission" for some of them. More likely a badge of honor.

[brokenhead]

soooo, do you believe misogynists exist or not? And what's your definition of it?

Of course misogynists exist. A misogynist is a man who hates women. You are one, apparently. But let's go with your definition that a misogynist is a man who hates women's feeble-mindedness. Now if you have contempt for a person's feeblemindedness, you have contempt for that person. Agreed?

You use the term "quantitative." Where do you get the idea that women are quantitatively more feeble-minded than men? Do you mean there are more feeble-minded women than there are feeble-minded men? I'm sure that's true. Because there are more women than men. I am well aware of the stereotypes that exist about women's "feeble minds." The Bimbo, for instance. What does the existence of a stereotype prove? It proves nothing, but it does indicate that there are actually living people out there who fit it to a tee. Well, so what? Are you telling me that in your experience women have weak minds? If so, I am telling you that in my experience, there is no evidence that one gender has it over the other.

I think your point is that women do not have to achieve in the intellectual arena as much as men do. They can look for a man in the desired socioeconomic strata, and then hook him like a fish.

I think you suffer from womb-envy. The truth is that it's the women who have the babies. That makes them societally different from men. On this level, you cannot compare the two from an idealistic standpoint. It is simple biology.

There is the world I see around me, and there is the world on TV. In the world I see around me, I find little difference in the intelectual capacities of men and women. That is in the working world. In the world on TV, women seem to outnumber men in the audiences of mindless talk shows. And the talk shows themselves seemed aimed at the basic hausfrau. Maybe the reason women seem "quantitatively" more feeble-minded is that they talk more on TV.

false. I believe men are more capable of being less deluded.

True. Men are more capable of becoming less deluded because they have more delusions to begin with.

Faust13, I can't harbor the kind of "contempt" you are speaking of. I just can't. Life is too short, too hard.

[Sue Hindmarsh]

Unidian wrote:

I don't think it would be an "admission" for some of them. More likely a badge of honor.

It is true that some men profess to hate women. And when asked why they feel that way, they reply that “all women do is give you trouble and heartache”, or that “they’re too controlling and nagging”, or that “they tell you that they love you, and then leave you and take all your money and the kids” – all valid reasons to hate women aged from around 17 and up who have, one way or another, sullied the man’s idea of what he thought women would, or should be like. But they also illuminate the truth behind this feeling of hate, for it clearly shows that these men deeply love women.

Rarely does anyone say they hate the entire female sex – including female babies and children. If they do, their mental state has been seriously twisted by circumstances, and like the men above, deep down they also long to be loved and cherished by a female.

Generally, most men do have one gripe or another with women. Some say they hate feminists or old biddies, or the mother-in-law, or that hot looking bitch that flirts with everyone else but leaves you out in the cold, or the gossipy girls in the office, or the sour old women at the shop, or the preachy female teachers at college. The list is endless because most men have some expectation or another as to what they want and expect from women. So again, it’s not hate without cause, the feeling of hate arises out of those other emotions that aren’t finding any closure – such as, love, envy, fear, boredom and resentment.

Some men pronounce their hate for women just so they can feel superior to other men, whom they see as weak due to their need and desire of women. Their hatred arises out of a desire to appear special – which arises out of fear, jealousy, etc.

Some women too, wanting to appear special, that is: different from all other women, will pronounce that they hate all other women. They’ll tell the man/men that they’re out to impress that they don’t have girlfriends because they can’t stand the way other women carry on. But they are hollow words used by her in the same way that she uses lipstick and tight clothes - it's just another ploy.

Another version of women saying they hate all other women arises out of their not being accepted by other women. That acceptance is the most important thing for all women, as they are nothing if they're not part of the woman-pack. Her saying that she hates all other women is a way to emotionally survive the torture she feels at being rejected by them.

So, Unidian, you are correct that there are some people who wear their hatred of women as a “badge of honour”, but as you see, their hatred is always to do with their love of women and their desperate need to find some emotional fulfillment. (Those that wear their love of women as a “badge of honour” are equally misguided, for their feelings of love also arise out of other emotions, such as fear, boredom and jealousy.)

I personally neither hate nor love females. Neither do I hate or love the feminine mind-set. Added to that, I also have no personal emotional attachment to males or the masculine mind. My work reflects the thing I most value – that being truth. And because the most important prerequisite for knowing truth is consciousness, I naturally value it over unconsciousness. The mind-set with the most potential for consciousness happens to be the masculine. Therefore, it is the masculine that I promote over the feminine. Discriminating thus is both reasonable and logical when you wish to promote wisdom.

[divine focus]

I personally neither hate nor love females. Neither do I hate or love the feminine mind-set. Added to that, I also have no personal emotional attachment to males or the masculine mind. My work reflects the thing I most value – that being truth. And because the most important prerequisite for knowing truth is consciousness, I naturally value it over unconsciousness. The mind-set with the most potential for consciousness happens to be the masculine. Therefore, it is the masculine that I promote over the feminine. Discriminating thus is both reasonable and logical when you wish to promote wisdom.

But also, as you insinuated earlier in your post, the feminine has the most potential for acceptance, or quiet appreciation. This is as much a factor of consciousness as knowing truth. Without being able to accept truth, belief systems will muddy the waters and prevent clarity. Truth may be known, but it will not be precise; therefore, it will not be the whole truth. There is equal value between feminine and masculine, and they support each other.

[snow bunny]

Sue, are you a Feminazi?

[Philosophaster]

I FIND YOUR LACK OF MASCULINITY DISTURBING.

[Unidian]

YOUNG FOOL! ONLY NOW, AT THE END, DO YOU UNDERSTAND MASCULINITY.

YOUR UNENLIGHTENED FRIENDS HAVE FALLEN INTO A TRAP. THIS GENIUS SPACE STATION IS FULLY OPERATIONAL!

NOW YOU SHALL EXPERIENCE THE *FULL POWER* OF THE MASCULINE SIDE!

[Nick Treklis]

Sue,

Excellent post, couldn't have said it better myself. If that doesn't shed enough light on to the perfect logic and reasoning behind the WOMAN philosophy for the critics of it around here, then I don't know what will.

[Unidian]

Sue,

Excellent post, couldn't have said it better myself. If that doesn't shed enough light on to the perfect logic and reasoning behind the WOMAN philosophy for the critics of it around here, then I don't know what will.

Supposing (for the sake of argument) that Sue's post does contain "perfect logic and reasoning," that doesn't establish as much as you apparently think it does. "If all Boogers are Sugar Boogers, and all Bumbles are Boogers, then all Bumbles are Sugar Boogers" is also an example of "perfect logic and reasoning." It doesn't follow that what is being discussed is meaningful.

[Nick Treklis]

Supposing (for the sake of argument) that Sue's post does contain "perfect logic and reasoning," that doesn't establish as much as you apparently think it does. "If all Boogers are Sugar Boogers, and all Bumbles are Boogers, then all Bumbles are Sugar Boogers" is also an example of "perfect logic and reasoning." It doesn't follow that what is being discussed is meaningful.

For anyone who values Truth above all else it is absolutely meaningful.

[Unidian]

I see. So "Truth" is just a tautological proposition which is true by definition? Hmm. Wittgenstein (and the dreaded Victor Danilchenko) pointed that out, although I don't think either of them thought of it as a bragging point. Rather, to paraphrase Wittgenstein, "about such things we must stfu." Was he wrong?

[Nick Treklis]

I see. So "Truth" is just a tautological proposition which is true by definition? Hmm.

Truth is the way things are as opposed to the way they are not. I don't see any reason to break it down any further with words and concepts.

Wittgenstein (and the dreaded Victor Danilchenko) pointed that out, although I don't think either of them thought of it as a bragging point.

Who's bragging?

Rather, to paraphrase Wittgenstein, "about such things we must stfu." Was he wrong?

I don't think calling his statement right or wrong makes much sense. It's just an opinion, an opinion which means nothing to me.

[Laird]

Sue, you do make some reasonable points and in some ways I see the sense in what you're saying. The main problem that I have with what you're saying though is your implication that hatred is a necessary consequence of love. That's why in another thread ("the more entrenched injustices of the world...") I had a go at you for doublethink - I was of course exaggerating your position for rhetorical effect but my point was this: that even though you might not specifically equate love with hatred, you imply that to love is ultimately to hate in the end, and that the only way to end hatred is to end love. I couldn't disagree more. Personally, there is very little hatred in my life and a lot of love. I think that the goal for a person should not be the eradication of both love and hatred, but the eradication of modes of thinking that lead one to hatred, in favour of a more equanimous perspective in which love is the norm. In that sense we probably agree that many people are lacking - for many of the reasons that you have pointed out - we just disagree about how to go about changing it. Perhaps the key to our disagreement lies in our understanding of "love". To me love incorporates not only the heady high of romantic attachment, but also the slow burn of genuine other-focussed compassion, and all states of appreciation for life in-between the two.

[Laird]

Sue, I've responded to your post in the thread, "the more entrenched injustices of the world...", here because I'd like to accumulate all of this very related discussion in the one place, and this thread seems more appropriate to me.

Laird: Please explain then the emotion's true nature.

Sue: [T]he emotions do not act independently of each other. They affect each other and the circumstances that arise. They colour how we see people, events, views, happenings – everything! We are literally their puppets – for whilst they are in charge, we act according to their whims.

Let me ask you then, Sue, whether you consider that it's possible to live a life in which love and not hatred is the norm, in which one uses rational, willful thought such that as negative emotions arise, one reflects on their unhelpful/unfair consequences and gradually trains one's mind into a more generally loving one?

But once you arrive at the knowledge of the interdependent nature of all things, you naturally become loosened from the emotions, and thereby act not solely according to them, but more and more according to the truth.

Truth to me is that love and respect are the best way, and that all emotions that lead me in that direction should be fostered, and that all emotions that lead me in a different direction should be rationalised away (insofar as that is possible).

[divine focus]

Sue,

Excellent post, couldn't have said it better myself. If that doesn't shed enough light on to the perfect logic and reasoning behind the WOMAN philosophy for the critics of it around here, then I don't know what will.

A key component of the WOMAN philosophy is that the feminine equals unconsciousness. If that means the feminine doesn't know the truth, that's not a very effective argument. The purpose of the feminine isn't to know the truth; it's to be the truth. Unconsciousness in terms of not knowing the truth is a masculine aspect and has nothing at all to do with the feminine. The masculine seeks to know truth, and if it doesn't know it isn't the fault of the feminine. The feminine is the truth and has no need to know itself the way the masculine does, because the masculine is there to provide that sort of knowing.

WOMAN is a highly inaccurate descriptor of masculine unconsciousness. The need to control, which results from not knowing the truth, has little to do with feminine unconsciousness. Both sides of unconsciousness support each other in staying unconscious, but the when the truth of the feminine is blurred, it leads to absolute judgment. Judgment is definitely not what QRS means when they speak of WOMAN; so throwing a feminine label on control, which is a masculine "fault" if you want to judge it, does not help their understanding at all.

[Sue Hindmarsh]

Laird wrote:

Sue, you do make some reasonable points and in some ways I see the sense in what you're saying.

Apart from the above pronouncement, nothing else in your post attested to your having understood any “points” I made.

It appears that you consider ‘love’ an independent entity. My post described that idea to be false, for all things depend on other things for their existence.

You wrote:

Personally, there is very little hatred in my life and a lot of love.

Here you’re saying that there are some things you love and some things you do not love. Have you ever observed that some of the things you love now were not loved, say, ten years ago? And that some things you now hate, were once in the love pile?

Have ever wondered how that came to be?