Evolutionary Blog

One of the things I have noticed about the current conversation around masculine/feminine dynamics and masculinity, in general, is just how threatened some men teaching polarity seem to be by certain things.

Notice I did not call them leaders - just people teaching these dynamics. There is a flavor to the way they teach it that reminds me of a born-again Christian who was recently baptized, or someone in a 12-Step program in their first few months of sobriety. Or a recent convert from one religion to another, or like somebody engaged in partisan politics who feels that the other side is evil even when they agree with their proposal. Or somebody who has recently found a transformational path - be it meditation or a community or a weekend workshop - and find it to quench a thirst that they've had for decades - and can’t stop talking about it and are hounding you to go.

This is understandable. As humans when we find a solution to a problem that we suffered from that may not have even been articulated previously we engage in it with a certain zeal.

The problem is there is an even greater need for clear, powerful, centered, principled men and the masculine these days. Feminine women are craving it - and the world is crying out for principled leadership, a commitment to truth, and is longing for depth.

And that last part is the real challenge here.

Make no mistake: men who are two-dimensional in their approach to masculine-feminine dynamics [meaning they lack depth, understanding of context, and when to powerfully lead and when to be more in flow, and the ability to calibrate to what is needed when and with whom] are the loudest voices in this domain. But you can engage in polarity without being polarizing.

You can be clear without being a dogmatic fundamentalist. We are all evolving all the time. What is the nature of personal evolution? The increasing capacity to take on an ever-increasing number of perspectives. To understand. To be able to argue from the other side and only then to show why you disagree with it. To honor it and then offer a better approach. It’s clear that these dogmatic, fundamentalists are in reaction. They are in fear. You can tell by their reactivity and their deflection. You can tell by their lack of tolerance for dissent.

You can tell by the things they are triggered by: Prince, conversations around gender identification, and their assertion that the trappings - the costume - of masculinity [beard and boots] are the answer. If they were really certain of their own internal masculine core - what I am calling a Column of Iron and Light - they would not be threatened by any of these things.

They would know it does not matter what someone wears. Don’t mistake reactivity and contraction for clarity and warriorship.

They are not offering a new, emergent path. Rather they are offering a 50s style approach because it makes them feel safer in chaotic times. That is also intrinsic to the nature of evolution: when we are under pressure, we contract and regress. We go back to stable structures that give us comfort. But that is not what we need right now. What we need is a new path that provides a better option that addresses the current chaos, and provides clarity in the face of it without denying or deflecting the realities of our current, complex times.

What we need are more Evolutionary Gentlemen.

Continue with Part 1 of The Problem With Most Male Polarity Coaches »here«

Read the introduction to The Problem With Most Polarity Coaches »HERE«.

Part 1:

-

There are two major problems I see in the “masculine polarity coach” space.

The first is that it is not evolution - not a new stage, wave, or level that is solving the problems of the stage before. Rather it is a contraction and a regression to previous forms. Instead of moving from rigid to flexible to fluid, it moved from rigid to flexible and then back to fixed/rigid. This is not a solution that will work in our post-conventional world. It may be attractive for a while. It provides respite from what seems like chaos and the mental and emotional fatigue in those that do not have the capacity to engage with that. AND it is an answer (and direct response) to the milquetoast nature of what has become the conventional norm in our society with empowered women and emasculated and uncertain men.

Many men have become afraid, timid, and uncertain. And many women are aching for a man they can surrender to - but surrender not because of his degree of force or dominance - that will do for a while for some, but quickly turns unhealthy. While they may want to be “claimed” at first, they will often find it stifling and will long to be free from the possessiveness that can turn into.

And the second is that what some think is clarity is not - it is simply rigidity born out of the fear of the unknown and discomfort with fluidity. It is a regression - not an evolution. A contraction - not an expansion to embrace more of what is. That and/or it is a trauma response and so the unhealthy masculine experiences a contraction, regression, and that comes out a dominance with an unhealthy residue.

This is why so many people who are highly sensitive to what feels “off” know that many of these polarity coaches feel out of tune.

Let me be clear: I am not saying that one should never lead, be in control, and even be dominant, but to do it from a healthy place of creation rather than an unhealthy regression will have a palpable difference in texture; one will make her drip with desire and naturally surrender. One will frighten her into submission - with varying degrees of subtlety. Both may turn her on at first, but the clean, healthy approach will be more sustainable as it is deeply intimate. While the other will be shorter-term and has a subject-object quality to it. Cool for a single BDSM scene perhaps, but not for sustained play.

The answer to the problem of the lack of polarity in Stage 2 relating is not the regression that most of the coaches promote. It is not a return to 1950s style patriarchal households, but rather an expansion to include - and embrace - previous forms but to do so in context, and have greater fluidity.

Healthy Stage 3 relating involves - at the very least - a woman who knows she does not need a man for her life to work - she gained her autonomy at Stage 2 - and with that freedom, her authentic desire to surrender in the presence of healthy Stage 3 masculine is motiveless except for her own feminine pleasure and arising desires - physically, emotionally, mentally, spiritually. And reciprocally, a man who is coming from a Stage 3 level of ego development does not desire a woman who is simply submissive. That may work situationally, but for a sustained, healthy partnership, he desires an empowered and autonomous woman who chooses to surrender to him for her own pleasure. In context. When she chooses.

In this scenario, it is more of a dance. It is fluid. It is contextual. And its lack of rigidity is the very element that gives it its sustain as well as its heat.

What do I mean by these stages? Movement through stages of ego, moral, and emotional development. Stages of increasing wholeness, stages of increasing degrees of freedom and acceptance, increasing choice. From fixed to flexible to fluid. From ego-centric to ethno/natio-centric to world-centric. It can be discerned what one needs to resolve or release at one stage and what they need to embrace or include in their map to move to the next stage; to evolve. It is critical to all humans because where we are on that scale/matrix/stage conception determines - by and large - how we relate to ourselves and how we relate to and interpret events around us.

When it comes to polarity and masculine/feminine (which we all have degrees of in each of us and these are not gender-bound), at each stage of development, we have even more options for expressions of those modes of being [see attached image]. This is both the beauty and wonder of it and - for some - the scary nightmare part of it.

This can make a lot of - heck most - people uncomfortable, and in the face of it, most regress and contract. Sadly, they will have more and more pressure and their position will become less and less tenable in an ever-changing and evolving world.

The choice is simple: embrace the complexities and expand our embrace of difference and expand the scope of what we can navigate, or regress to a more 2-dimensional view of man-woman relations. But here’s the thing: no matter how much they may resist it, there is a directionality to personal and cultural evolution. So go ahead and dig the heels of your boots in and grow your beard out, but the world is moving forward whether you embrace it or not.

-

Post Script: the unfortunate thing is that it seems these polarity coaches have all read "Selling to the Lizard Brain" or something as their marketing is effective at triggering the most base of fears and desires and as such will always attract more people at first. Even those who disagree with them are drawn to it. But their model is bankrupt - spiritually and emotionally - and ineffective at creating sustainable, intimate relationships - regardless of how effective their business model may be at scale.

-

Continue The Problem With Most Polarity Coaches, with Part 2 »HERE«.

"Falling in love is the greatest story of addiction in existence." -Philippe Lewis I toyed with this idea for years. Along with the idea that all romantic love is delusion. Delusion and addiction. Why else does "absence make the heart grow fonder" if not because you aren't dealing with the reality of who they are - but rather who you imagine them t...

This is from the introduction to the forthcoming book. You can find additional excerpts here.

-----

It’s the one thing that unites and connects us all.

We are not united by national origin, gender, politics, ethnicity, and the like. Not universally. The one thing that universally unites us is this:

Love

It's the one thing every human has in common.

Any poem about love in any language still transmits the same experience regardless of the language we translate it into. Sufi mystic Rumi and Nobel Prize winner Pablo Neruda were separated by several centuries yet both their poetry still translates to this:

Love

Love. Love and a clear reverence for the women they loved without losing any of their masculine centers. It's almost become a lost art.

But it does not matter where your lover came from or whether you have the same birth language - or even speak the same language. Or what color they are. We can fall in love with anyone from any place - from any religion or cultural background - at any time.

We’ve all experienced some version of it. 

Perhaps it was the rush of the chemical attraction--they touched your hand and the electricity was unforgettable. Or maybe it wasn’t the chemistry, maybe it was the feeling of finally being home. Or a kind of comfort and safety you felt almost immediately. Or maybe it was a feeling of familiarity--as if you've known someone for years even though you just met them.

Then at some point when those feelings (many of which we discover are Illusions and projections) are dispelled, and the person begins to behave in ways that disappoint, confound or even anger us, we may begin to question the connection that we have with them and at times, perhaps, even our own judgment. 

Inevitably, we come face-to-face with how many assumptions we've made. How we have built our entire relationship and levels of trust, as well as our fantasies about the future, on these assumptions. And in our pain and confusion, we often make grave errors that only make matters worse and tragically make our future in that relationship - or the next - even worse still.

Sucks, right?

But you know what? 

Virtually all of that is avoidable.

Most of us do not know how to set ourselves up for success in the beginning - we start dating based on chemistry and attraction or availability - not on aligned values. We do not know how to have the conversations to set a baseline for what we will agree on - what our agreed foundation is - heck, some people wait so long to have these conversations that they are not even sure if they are monogamous or both dating other people months into dating (!)

These are conversations that need to be had sooner rather than later. And some people know that, but they don’t know how to have those conversations.

Or worse, they are simply too scared to have them.

Then when conflict arises,  we lack the tools to navigate the situation in a way that feels good, let alone connective and satisfying to both of you.  

Or when the relationship stalls we don't know how to keep it alive, sexy, and have it continue to inspire and uplift - to bring out the best in us.

Then when it ends we have no constructive way to deal with the grief, the self-doubt, the anger, and no capacity to deal with feelings of betrayal or loss or confusion. 

At that point, some of us immerse ourselves so deeply into the process and feelings of loss that we may even think that we are destined to repeat the cycles - and perhaps some of you have - that do not work and lack fundamental workability.

This book strives to solve most of the avoidable challenges and problems that arise in all three stages of relationships and provides structures and tools to assist you in working through the unpredictable - and in some cases unforeseeable - problems that arise. 

In the beginning: how to avoid unwarranted bliss and the inevitable crash - disappointment and even, how to avoid mediocrity in the middle or simply being in a habit rather than in a relationship, how to deal with anger fear jealousy all those things that can arise and create conflict in that middle stage. And of course, the confusion, anger, and grief that can arise when it ends if it ends and how to set yourself up for Success without vilifying the other person and how to reclaim your power if you've lost yourself in the relationship. 

One of the aspects of working on and in the context of personal evolution is that I am constantly in evolution in both senses of the word--"in it", as in exploring the context and in the process of my own personal evolution as well--because you see, it is never over. Our evolution, which is really about allowing the greatest depths of ourselves to unfold and manifest in the world, is never over--because our depths are infinite. If who we are is a manifestation of the divine--an outpouring of Spirit, and the Kingdom of God is Within [and I believe it is] then there is no end to uncovering, clearing, and allowing that beauty to unfold in the world.

And I never ask my clients to do anything I have not done myself and am applying in my own life. Period. As such, this post is a little more personal for me to demonstrate that.

After my divorce, and the year-long self-reflection that followed, I realized that for the most part, what consistently happened in my romantic relating was a zero-sum type of dynamic. That at the end of my relationship with a woman, she was tangibly more empowered, more comfortable with herself, more fully embodied, and proud of her womanhood.

Partly because it was my constant practice to be sure she felt loved, had per positive qualities acknowledged somehow on an actual daily basis [not the same ones, but what authentically struck me at the moment as I appreciated her at some point], that she not only had a daily reminder, with full connection and presence of my love for her [and what I loved about her and why] but that she blushed with my acknowledgments.

It was conscious. Intentional. And the relating really cost me dearly. I was psychically drained, more dis-empowered, and frankly, less of a man by the end. It was, in fact, a zero-sum game.

It was not the things I was doing that drained me. They were rewarding to just do it. It was the lack of any reciprocal expression, I think. And I other things they did that I lacked facility around.

The contrast had never been so great than after my divorce--and the dynamics never so clear as in that marriage.

Now, I never planned it that way, but once I noticed it after the divorce, I ended up having a zero-tolerance policy for romantic relating that was not about synergistic upward spirals where both people were winning--and the relating was winning too. A triple win game. Both parties were winning--AND the actual relating was winning too. It is healthier for me to just be alone and fully empowered McClain-Ness than to be in unfulfilling and relating that ultimately cost me energetically. Although it took me a while to adjust to that, and sadly there was one relationship in which she ended up being drained...but it is all a process--and sometimes that is about the pendulum swinging the other way before it swings back the middle to finally rest upon the golden mean.

But back to zero-sum...

Let's face it--people who have little or no self-respect choose bad and even abusive relationships over being alone. Me? I would rather wake up alone, be in the company of just myself, than be in an unhealthy or un-fulfilling relationship. And I never have [and never will] just go from one relationship to another. Takes at least 6 months or so for self-reflection and the integration of the learnings before we can be responsible with another's heart, But that is all romantic...

Six years later, I am just now getting to really make sure that is generalized into all relating--not just romantic.

This is all part of how I have been consciously going through ALL of my friendships, free of sentimentality or attachment, and shrewdly examining if they are rich, dynamic, healthy, and fulfilling--or if they are just habits. And then explicitly ending the friendship or deepening and continuing the friendship with more connection, engagement, and intentionality. Regardless of how much I love the individual I am in the friendship with I may be ending. The relating must also be fulfilling. and one of the most important things for me that has the relating fulfilling is emotional engagement...rather than fear and detachment. But real engagement--yet also free of identification or enmeshment.

SOMETIMES that means me making decisions for other people when their relating with me is not serving THEM. I used to refuse to do so, thinking I was availing them of the growth opportunity to declare boundaries, make those choices themselves, develop confidence in communicating their needs, etc. But given that most people are deficient in true esteem for the self, and self-respect [part of which is demonstrated by drawing boundaries] is one of the core components of esteem for the self [along with self-efficacy] but I stopped doing that. I am now quite comfortable making choices for others when they continually demonstrate they incompetent to do for themselves--so long as it is about relating with me.

That is quite enough of the why and the what. But what about the "how" Jason?

It is all about values and forms.

One of the exercises I have clients do in Phase 2 of the Personal Evolution program [and occasionally in the professional evolution program as well] is a full life, all context examination of what is important to them [values] and how they would know if it were being experienced by them; what would they be seeing, feeling hearing, doing, and experiencing that would prover to them they were experiencing value X, Y, or Z? Conflict often happens in the form [which is why politicians are scant on policy papers before the election]. Values [freedom, security, justice] are things that everyone can agree on--we all want that. The HOW of carrying them out? Conflict arises sure as the sun also rises.

So in seeking friendships or romantic relating, it is not enough to express that "communication" is important to us. For some that will mean asking about your day. For others that will mean that if you are bothered by something, no matter how small, you share your internal process. Communication is the value, but the form is different.

Anytime we are upset, barring an unresolved event from the past or a pervasive self-esteem issue, we must look to values. So this becomes a tool for elegant communication to have your needs expressed [and met] as well. One that avoids conflict or having the other person be wrong. One that has intimacy and a deeper level of understanding arise.

But that is a story for another time.

For now, do this: