The question.....

I know this is a tangent, but one of the things this article brought forward for me was the question of, “where are we creating from?”  It struck me that much of the original “women’s lib” movement was generated out of being against something - namely, inequality.  From my experience, creating from a place of lacking (or negativity) just isn’t sustainable.  Once you achieve the goal (if you ever do), then the energy from the negativity still has to go somewhere.  Sadly, in the case of women, this article brings up the point that a lot of that energy of separateness and lacking and negativity may have ultimately caused women to settle back into their separateness, lacking and negativity (at least to some degree).

I’m a big believer in creating from a place of positive intention.  That’s where love - for self and others - exists.  From this place, I believe real, sustainable change, evolution and revolution are possible. 

Amazing and thought provoking article.  Thanks for sharing!

Wow! What an article. All kinds of underlying assumptions to inquire into and physiological reactions to notice. Phew! I don’t know what the “original women’s lib.” movement was born out of…a reaction or from within…but I can see what is going on now: The feminine side of Being is in part what is allowing consciousness to emerge! What about Riane Eilser, Pema Chodron, Barbara M. Hubbard, Byron Katie, Frances Vaughan, Toni Packer, Pamela Wilson, Catherine Ingram, Marilyn Schlitz, and countless others? And us! Well, they are meeting with people, talking and pointing to consciousness. Of course more men are visible, we have millions of years of conditioning to account for that! Peace.

Hi.

It is wonderful that you have posted this Teri!

I had the pleasure to meet with the article’s author Elizabeth Debold  at the Women and Power conference at the Omega Institute in October last year where she (with Jessica) was inquiring into the relationship between feminism and the impetus to make shifts in  consciousness…

I am fundementally fascinated by these questions!

I think that the women’s movement did began both as a movement against and as a movement forward.. but after this initial explosion of consciousness and change much of the movement stagnated as its focus was negative/against/other.. but I also believe that there is still another fundamental shift to be made  -  in which there is both avowal for the pain our collective past (the karmic history that we all carry, in which both men and women were complicit) and healing through men and women  fully recognising one another.

I have written a paper on Integral Feminism which can be found on Integral University’s Centre of Integral Sexuality and Gender Studies paper, in which I explore the various schools and development of feminist thought - their relationship to the concept of what a Woman is - and what Woman and feminism might look like from an integrally informed (nondual) persepective.

Also, if you cruise over to my blog you will also find part of a paper that I have posted up on men and women in relation to masculine and feminine types of (integral spiritual) practice.

A fascinating article and excellent comments that took some thought. I don't know what I could offer except to wonder on a few things. I was born in the 60's and came out from a family/mother that was a 'feminist'. There was a great deal of anger in her avowal that I could do anything I wanted (dammit!) and this anger seems a very real part of the early feminist movement. And I think a very natural and good anger in many ways. But anger cannot sustain a movement. It needs to move beyond that to healing and understanding. HUGE strides (lets not for get that it has only been 40 years since the 60's!) have been made and now is the time, I think for a new paradigm.

 One of the things that this article got me wondering about is - what does it mean to be a female leader? In the 80's women entered full force into the workforce - but we dressed like men in our suites and floppy bow ties. We were expected to climb the corporate ladder like a man - ruthless in our ambition. It was the only path that was taught us. I wonder if some of what we are seeing is a desire for women to redefine what it means to be a feminist leader. Do we have to folow the same heirarchical staus that men have followed for millenia? Is there another way to lead? And I'm not talking about the backlash the author speaks of where women simply celebrated being mothers and taking care of the home, but that does seem a pendulum swing worth noting and worth paying attention to. If most school girls say they want to be in service - is 'in service' a lack of leadership or a new paradigm of leadership? Was not Jesus in service to all? The Dalai Llama? Ghandi? Mother Teresa? The leaders we most admire were in service and didn't necessarily use blind ambition, power plays as their mode of transportation, but rather service (and not I-give-up-my-being type of service, but a service of truth). And how does this show up in the relation between male and female leaders? Do male leaders such as Ken Wilbur and Andrew Cohen need to stop looking a leadership from a male perspective and look around them to find women in a different paradigm of leadership and incorporate that into the integral spirituality? And even better how do women and men come together to form a new mode of transporation for leadership?

 Some thoughts to ponder. :-)

Sian

 Ps. I am operating on the assumption that there are some basic differences between men and women and I'm using this in a 'gross' context, understanding that each are individuals and some more inclined toward the 'feminine' or the 'masculine' forms of leadership/power irregardless of gender.

Love this thread and the article that inspired it. Certainly has got me thinking.
It seems in some ways that women have a more personal and ripple-like effect on the world. As in we afect all of those around us through personal relationships in our teachings as friends, mothers, sisters, open and emotional beings in day to day, moment to moment life.
And men, maybe, charge on a larger scale. Maybe from a history of being in “power” at least politically, corporately, etc. they have an impact that is less intimate and more large-scale.
Obviously there are exceptions to both, but could this be from an ancient genetic place of women holding the clan together as nurturers, while men are more disposed for
“battle”(hunting/defending, etc.)?