I know the question was not asked of me, but I will offer my perspective as well.

I’m on the fence about this whole “polarization” thing. My bias against Deida may be a part of that. I just don’t find his ideas cutting edge or even all that interesting to begin with.

But let’s say for a moment that I do agree about feminine/masculine “essences” and that they, as you say, “create sexual polarity or attraction that facilitates two human bodies coming together”, even if I agree with that, I would have to ask myself if it’s important to me as a spiritual practicioner that two human bodies come together in the first place, or if I, as a spiritual practicioner of the 4 noble truths, rather seek an end to the cycle of human bodies coming together at all.

work backwards from the source or brahman or god or the absolute (or wilber’s eros?) … where is gender? or polarity? it is a ascribed to the expression(s) of wholeness into the particular.

there is apparently duality. cool. so what, to the developed integral mind/being.

I’m sure Victorian vestiges are troubling and problematic, but not everyone shares them. Even so, language is an organic artifact, very much alive and morphing, and there will always be a tension between interventionist and non-interventionist approaches, and introducing gender-neutral speech is certainly one way to refresh the way we contemplate some issues. In your previous blog post, you said that “ERADICATION of terms” was proposed and those strong words got my attention, but it also got me thinking. I’m not a priori against linguistic engineering, but any engineering should come from a clear idea, not from an inquiry into an emergent space (in which case an experiment may be proposed). And this all comes to the way we envision and enact sex & gender in 2nd and 3rd tier, with very clear understanding of axes used to polarize and juxtapose and organize multiplicity into fundamental dualities. It has already been proposed – and argued quite strongly – that in higher development there’s potential for BOTH gender neutrality/balance AND further energizing and polarization of the masculine and feminine in every sense. This apparent paradox would suggest (it seems) that we need to be very careful with interventionist, especially prohibitive, linguistic engineering and more playful with the existing vocabulary while sensitive to entrenched notions.

Plus, when considering limitation – or special attention – on using “masculine” and “feminine” in integral discourse, should we extend these to visual symbolism (anthropomorphic and abstract) and music perhaps? Anyway, I’m sure these two words will continue to provide ground for fruitful discussion for decades to come and then some.:-)

Godspeed,

Hokai

I wouldn’t say Elizabeth Debold has corrected me. I would say she offered her perspective. And to play the game fair, we are all ALLOWED our perspectives, are we not? Some are just more partial than others…

I for one, do not want anyone to give up their respected perspectives, but rather to allow room for others to emerge, to be able to move fluidly between perspectives, and to hold paradox, as in conflicting perspectives. Isn’t that what the Integral approach calls us to do?

I guess you were one of the five men in the audience at the theory conference for this discussion, yes?

The issue is not so simple you see… Masculine and feminine conveys much more than just agency and communion. Masculine refers to agency, as well as autonomy, justice and rights. Feminine refers to communion, as well as, relationship, care and responsibility. I just don’t see how agency and communion can convey all the above stated dynamics.

I am open to suggestions that make sense, this one appears to be overly simplistic.

Hit me up with a better suggestion…my blog is open