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«
Part 1 of The Problem With Most Male Polarity Coaches is back »here«.
Part 2 is below.
Recently I have peeked into male-oriented polarity groups and I’ve been researching how a lot of men are coaching men around relating to women in all-male containers.
I am going to make some sweeping generalizations here, and I know not all men’s groups and coaches will fall into this category, but the overwhelming majority I have seen falls into what I will talk about. And I will explain why I think they are making some grave mistakes.
First, they are addressing a real problem. The problem that has women lamenting “where have all the real men gone?” for at least the last decade. The problem of the lack of polarity. The problem of milquetoast intimate relating between men and women. There are many things in our cultural evolution that have led to this problem - one I have been examining and hearing about for over a decade now with some intentionality - but I’ll get into the “why” we find ourselves here at another time. For now, suffice it to say they are addressing a real problem. That, and men who feel isolated or guilty simply for being men. So there are men attempting to regain their masculine core.
But what I have noticed - by far - are men giving men coaching that has them be liked by other men. Not be more effective with feminine yet empowered women. It’s as if they are more comfortable high-fiving in the locker room than they are gazing into a women’s eyes while you make slow, deep, connected love to them.
The themes I see are these:
- Women are basically children and behave like children and you have to treat them that way
- Women “can’t be trusted” because they have feelings that are transient that make agreements or understandings fluid and - the one that finally had me say “enough” and write this:
- At her worst, she is broken and at her best, she is fractured. No matter how many accolades, successes, or children - a man is what makes her feel complete.
Frankly, it borders on misogyny.
My basic reaction to this is: “Wow. How do you say you date young women with low self-esteem to make yourself feel superior without saying you date young women with low self-esteem to make yourself feel superior?”
There is a lot to unpack there, but to men who buy into this sh*t: don’t listen to men who have clearly only dated low-quality, still in trauma, or immature women who have low self-esteem.
These opinions not only reveal more about those men who think these things but also, reveal a lot about the kind of woman he has dated and continues to attract than it does about women in general.
These aren't insights. They just reveal low consciousness. Average mindsets. Mediocre relating and below-average relationships.
But if you say any crap congruently enough, plenty of people will buy it. Especially if they are lost and looking for direction. And in the echo chamber of man-on-man polarity coaching, there is a lot of crap. But are they effective with women? Are they having fulfilling relationships - regardless of how long? Or are they just plowing through one-night stands and getting high-fives from their “bros”.
Humans rise to the expectations we hold for them, communicate to them, and if we are developed enough and aligned enough within ourselves, we become a truing element - we don’t even need to declare a boundary usually because it is woven into the fabric of our being. It is an outgrowth of self-respect.
Just as when a woman says “all men ever want is sex”. First, if she believes that, she will attract those kinds of men. Basic Law of Attraction stuff - and then her confirmation bias will make it seem like the ultimate reality.
Similarly, if men think all women need a man to feel complete, can’t take care of themselves, and are basically childlike and/or broken, they will notice, attract, and continue to date those types of women. Basic Law of Attraction stuff - and then his confirmation bias will make it seem like the ultimate reality.
Part 2 of The Problem With Most Male Polarity Coaches is back »HERE«.
Part 3 is below.
Read the introduction to The Problem With Most Polarity Coaches »HERE«.
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«.