In the past few months and years, the curtain has been pulled back from the stage of my life, and I’ve seen the working of backstage events that are unfortunate.
Irony, I've studied, and even been trained in the dynamic between masculine and feminine energies, and I still missed much. I have a testimonial from this, that I'll never cross-post on this part of my offerings, but it means little now.
Apr 10·edited Apr 10Liked by Certified ADA Advocate
Don't beat yourself up about it at all. Why? Because I very carefully watch how each speaker uses "masculine" and "feminine", and nearly every speaker I've come across defines them differently. For example:
* Orion defines them as being able to exist simultaneously, as if on different axes, instead of in counterbalance to each other creating polarity (how Deida and I view it: that each person can alternate between them, but not simultaneously). I currently disagree with Orion on the simultaneous concept, although am trying to expand my mind to somehow incorporate his take too, if applicable.
* Casey's latest video talks about how the Masc is more of a constantly driving force, which is contrary to how...
* Deida ("The Way of the Superior Man") defines Masc as the observer and structure, and the Fem is the energy or force filling it... the flow, the weather, the dance, the energy.
* Robert Glover ("No More Mr. Nice Guy", which I hope you are going over and over again now too) I believe defines Masc as "penetrating" and Fem as "receptive", which I'm trying to compare/balance to Deida.
* And endless others, each with their own take.
So far, I can see how this is a mess in the whole world. Like everything else, when the definitions are messed up, then the confusion of apples vs oranges makes for contention and chaos.
Your focus now is likely better served by identifying unbalanced giving vs receiving, codependency, dysfunctional patterns, narcissism, and the actual point of the marriage business contract itself (stability for raising progeny and growing a wealth dynasty... NOT love, monogamy, and other such forced modern concepts... nitro & glycerine.)
Are you regularly watching these channels I had previously suggested? There are topics for just about anything.
* Lise Leblanc (men's psychologist) = https://www.youtube.com/@LiseLeblanc/videos
* Orion Taraban's "Psychacks" (psychologist) = https://www.youtube.com/@psychacks/videos
* Casey Zander (masculine & feminine dynamics) = https://www.youtube.com/@CaseyZander/videos
Irony, I've studied, and even been trained in the dynamic between masculine and feminine energies, and I still missed much. I have a testimonial from this, that I'll never cross-post on this part of my offerings, but it means little now.
Don't beat yourself up about it at all. Why? Because I very carefully watch how each speaker uses "masculine" and "feminine", and nearly every speaker I've come across defines them differently. For example:
* Orion defines them as being able to exist simultaneously, as if on different axes, instead of in counterbalance to each other creating polarity (how Deida and I view it: that each person can alternate between them, but not simultaneously). I currently disagree with Orion on the simultaneous concept, although am trying to expand my mind to somehow incorporate his take too, if applicable.
* Casey's latest video talks about how the Masc is more of a constantly driving force, which is contrary to how...
* Deida ("The Way of the Superior Man") defines Masc as the observer and structure, and the Fem is the energy or force filling it... the flow, the weather, the dance, the energy.
* Robert Glover ("No More Mr. Nice Guy", which I hope you are going over and over again now too) I believe defines Masc as "penetrating" and Fem as "receptive", which I'm trying to compare/balance to Deida.
* And endless others, each with their own take.
So far, I can see how this is a mess in the whole world. Like everything else, when the definitions are messed up, then the confusion of apples vs oranges makes for contention and chaos.
Your focus now is likely better served by identifying unbalanced giving vs receiving, codependency, dysfunctional patterns, narcissism, and the actual point of the marriage business contract itself (stability for raising progeny and growing a wealth dynasty... NOT love, monogamy, and other such forced modern concepts... nitro & glycerine.)