View Full Version : Gender Stereotypes & Anthropomorphized Models Of Reality

04-06-2014, 09:25 AM
Two articles by two very interesting people.

The first one addresses an issue that I myself have felt strongly about, and this is the gender association of 'Earth' (the planet/planetary spirit) with 'female'/'mother earth' and of 'Heaven'/'God' with 'Father Sky' respectively, as if all of Creation follows the hetero-sexist nuclear family model. The article(s) below challenge that.

The second article goes further to deconstruct the/our deeply programmed gender stereotypes.

Read for yourselves and see what you think...


And the second article:


04-06-2014, 02:23 PM
Think "Both and All at the Same Time."

Principles should not be competitive, but understanding and on a multidimensional level.

04-06-2014, 03:15 PM
Think "Both and All at the Same Time."

Please don't tell me what to think. I would much rather prefer to hear what you think... as in 'sharing perspectives' :)

Principles should not be competitive, but understanding and on a multidimensional level.

Could you please elaborate (if so inclined) how, in your opinion, this general statement pertains to those two articles in a more 'particular' way?

I personally think that those two short pieces are attempting to do exactly that - present a wider, more 'multidimensional' approach to the gender principle.

What I (personally) see in them, is an attempt to let go of 'gender' as a strictly binary notion and embrace it more like a 'continuum' of sorts...

On a thermometer, where is the point that marks the end of 'cold' and the beginning of 'warm'?

On the gender-quality scale/division, where is the end of 'feminine' and the beginning of 'masculine'?

Gender distinction (or sexual tension, for the Scorpios among us :)) occurs IMU when there is a difference in potential, seeking to balance itself.

Thus, a certain 'charge' can take on the (relative) 'female' role in one interaction and the (relative) 'male' role in another, depending on the complementary charge it comes in contact with.

04-06-2014, 04:33 PM
Ha! Androgynus ...

"Telling" and merely "poking" (or provoking) as a stimulus are two entirely different concepts.

I'm smiling as I type this.

One thing I was sure to experience in interacting on this site was some form of accusation of "authoritarianism." It's inevitable since we live in an authoritarian society. We're literally paranoid of anything we might perceive as an authority ... (and note I'm saying "we" intentionally since I'm subjected to it, too).

In other words, to put it another way, I didn't even remotely "tell" you to think anything. There was no authority behind my use of the word, "think." It was merely a stimulus. No need to defend against something that was not intended as an authoritarian attack.

It's fairly evident that you've monitored at least a few of my writings, and I've used the term "wholistic" on several occasions. I do not step in and out of that frame of mind for the sake of conversation. I live it.

I try -- since it is an evolutionary process -- to grow away from living with tunnel vision, to incorporate peripheral vision, to live within a wider view, to learn to use focused vision to better understand the whole.

Do you see a mathematical equation in that?

Do you see an Alchemical process?

Haven't I just described multidimensional thinking? ... (at least in its most primitive form?)

I see this multidimensional thinking in the subsequent content of your post ... the struggle to fragment the polar and dualistic concepts of male/female and even hot/cold, both of which are highly subjective.

What do I think?

I make the effort to think "objectively" while at the same time understanding the "subjective."

I call on my subjective ego to converse with my objective External Observer.

Now just what the heck is this External Observer?

It is that part of myself that is not subjected (in all ways, including force or even need) to emotionalizations or rationalizations.

Note that no dominance is implied. It is a conversation.

There's another way to put it.

I allow myself to be fragmented to better understand the whole.

I allow my feminine self to express in order to better understand the masculine. When the masculine expresses, which is often since I am, that expression is put into context consciously standing side-by-side with the feminine.

I allow my emotionally immature self to express along side my experienced mature reasoning self.

I allow my brain-stem visceral self to express in conversation with my frontal lobe cognitive self.

I allow my body to freely communicate with my mind and vice-versa.

This is the theory, anyway. Often the practice is far more difficult than I imply. After all, we live in a polarized, dualistic, excessive/obsessive/compulsive, tunnel-visioned world and it's often difficult to develop and use wider vision.

In fact, we're often beaten psychologically, emotionally and even physically into submitting to these compartmentalizations.

I choose not to submit.

I choose not to be pigeon-holed.

I choose the Red Pill.

I choose (and defend) "sovereignty," and not just my own, but yours as well ... but also inasmuch as that concept relates to the whole.

Multidimensional Thinking.

What do I think?

I'm attempting to think beyond the paradigm of polar opposites and making the effort to understand wholistic incorporation.

I'm attempting to live in a paradigm of interconnected cycles rather than compartmentalized linear limitations.

See the difference?

04-06-2014, 08:31 PM
Without any solid information it is hard to say, but let me try anyway... ;)

When I speak of feminine or masculine I don't see a problem with it. A male can be feminine or masculine etc. It is just a word to describe a certain template. Neither is better than the other... but both are very boring if that is all we have.

So the only time I have experienced any form of God is in the Amazon and in West Africa. In both cases I was doing psychedelic rituals.

In the Amazon I perceived the 'God' to be feminine, and in Africa I perceived it as masculine. Not that it was male or female, but of a feminine/masculine template/temperament. Although both cultures viewed their God as feminine... I guess the African one was butch! LOL!

I understand why people need to be picky, and why it is counter-productive in this age of equality to place gender on gods... but from my own experience I have clearly experienced a goddess of some sort. And in a way if there really is a god out there that created everything it's pretty logical that this god is a woman.

Mainly it is the female gender that creates life (exceptions are few, for example sea horses, although they have a feminine look). So it makes more sense that god is a woman.

But it also makes sense that god is of no gender, but for us petty humans and our petty brains we need something to hang our logic to or our brain's will explode.


04-06-2014, 09:03 PM

Makes more sense I think...


To anthropomorphize is a natural thing to do for humans... we can only mostly draw from personal experience so I think it is pretty logical that we put gender on gods. It is also logical that when the male dominator culture took control this gender became male... not saying it is right, but it is what is/was.

I think we will move away from this in time, and move back towards more feminine god archetypes or even androgynous ones (feminine is closer to androgynous... first you cut the dick off... then you close the hole).


04-06-2014, 09:56 PM



04-07-2014, 04:07 AM
Gender distinction (or sexual tension, for the Scorpios among us :)) occurs IMU when there is a difference in potential, seeking to balance itself.

Thus, a certain 'charge' can take on the (relative) 'female' role in one interaction and the (relative) 'male' role in another, depending on the complementary charge it comes in contact with.

This reminds me of mirrors and the reflection of an image. The reflection may be an exact image, but has completely different qualities.

Good post :)

I enjoyed the second article most. "Socially constructed notions of femininity and masculinity don't make sense in a compost heap."

Sounds like song lyrics!

04-07-2014, 10:49 AM
In the Alchemical process, the polarities are firstly clearly marked and seperated. It is an absolute pre requesite in order to make a proper conjunction.
What could you join, if nothing is separated ? What could you unite if both were not different ?

That said, the Magnum Opus is to generate a non-gendered product. Kill the kind, kill the queen.
Le Roi est mort, vive le Roi, la Reine est morte, vive la Reine !

A perfect equilibrium, including the seed of the "male" and of the "female", but transmuted, transgendered. Cooked and united.

Won't this be acheived during the process in ourselves too ?

In Yoga, we are aware that the *particular* vision of God is due to the opening of the Hrit Padma Chakra, or Hridaya Chakra, located below the heart.
You realize that "god is BLUE" OMG, it is Blue !" but for another one God is maybe Green ! God/dess is just a particular Vision because when you touch vacuity, there is no one there. No gender. No.thing.

Humanity needs separation and distinct genders to construct itself, and in order to have something to unite at the proper time. Fight between genders is also important. It is exactly the same thing with society and class struggles.
The process is natural.

One day, all this will fall in putrefaction.

And the final race will rise.

Until everything is solve again into duality.

08-27-2014, 04:02 AM
These are some very interesting views and beautiful writing. Unfortunately my english is limited, but I'll try to describe my thougts anyway.

Yesterday I was reading reading the Thomas Gospel once again, which is apocryphic. These, as the author claims, are the words of Jesus. Several paragraphes are exactly about this subject. Not that I am catholic or that I go to churches, but this was rather fascinating.

(22) Jesus saw infants being suckled. He said to his disciples, "These infants being suckled are like those who enter the kingdom." They said to him, "Shall we then, as children, enter the kingdom?" Jesus said to them, "When you make the two one, and when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside, and the above like the below, and when you make the male and the female one and the same, so that the male not be male nor the female female; and when you fashion eyes in the place of an eye, and a hand in place of a hand, and a foot in place of a foot, and a likeness in place of a likeness; then will you enter the kingdom."

Given, confusing in some parts, and even very contradicting, as in:

(114) Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life." Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."

I just have to take these strange parts as a mystery. Personally I think, even if women indeed think diffrent, and cannot be understood entirely by men, regardless how feminin these men are, Gender in relation to spiritual awakening and identity, is non-relevant. Sexuality, as long as no destructive behaviour is involved, is also non-relevant.

In my opinion any gender specific consideration in spirituality is a step away from enlightment and growth.


bleeding yolk
08-27-2014, 05:34 PM
....one should keep in mind that the hermetic principle of "gender" is not limited to sexual characteristics ,....it is a principle that is supposed to be impregne3ted throughout the universe........

01-13-2020, 03:16 PM
Not sure if this is the right thread. I was debating with my wife and I argued that if a man becomes a woman (with surgery), eats the hormones and fully becomes a woman physically (minus the womb) AND if another man has sex with this person I still view it as a heterosexual encounter and not a homosexual one. Thoughts?


01-13-2020, 04:53 PM
I was debating with my wife and I argued
What was your wife's position in the debate?

01-13-2020, 05:39 PM
She couldn't decide. LOL.


01-14-2020, 03:07 PM
My thoughts are that if was set up on stage, and an audience witnesses the act and the majority thinks it to be a man and a women, then it would be heterosexual.

But if the audience thought it to be a man and a man, then it would be homosexual.

I’m basing these thoughts on the idea that most people forget certain things about themselves when making love.