David Deida's gender archetypes
A friend of mine posted a link to a series of Youtube videos containing a "Spirit Sex Love" workshop by David Deida. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IZrkMZyEWY (part 1 of 12)
It's interesting stuff, though I have mixed feelings about it.
He brings in a good bit of religion, but I find I can get past that by replacing "open to God" with "open to the Universe".
Where I have more issue is that he is very much pushing a one-size-fits-all application of gender roles. I will say that his masculine and feminine archetypes are very useful concepts, and it seems that a lot of the people in the audience weren't in touch with their primary masculine/feminine sides. I certainly could have gained a lot from seeing this when I was 16.
However, I think the polar extremes of gender roles should be viewed more as archetypes, raw materials for exploring different aspects of identity. As roles they are more useful in the bedroom and less useful in overall relationship dynamics. In my experience I find women more interesting if they have some of the masculine archetype (ambition, focused consciousness, drive) mixed in with primarily feminine traits. Women without a focused passion of their own are simply not as interesting. However, for me women do also need to have enough of the feminine archetype mixed in (especially visually) or I find myself less attracted to them.
To be fair, he does bring up that fact that most people do have a mix of archetypical masculine traits and archetypical feminine traits, but his solution to everyone's problem is that they're not sufficiently in touch with their primary side. He also goes so far as to almost explicitly state that the man's goals need to be the sole driving force of the relationship, which I don't agree with. This may work for a lot of people, but it's not my style. I like a little more well-roundedness from both parties in the relationship.
Separately, his techniques for exposing people are effective, but are performed with such ruthless efficiency that they're a little reminiscent of a cult leader.
Don't let any of this stop you from watching the videos though -- they are quite interesting.
---
In the end, I think of it as to some degree a false dichotomy, like some of the Myers-Briggs categories. You can be both an introvert and an extrovert, or good at both sensing and intuiting. I want to be able to fully channel masculine energy, but also be able to provide feminine energy as well. There's nothing wrong with being goal-seeking *and* radiant.
I know some of you are big fans of Deida, and I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this.
It's interesting stuff, though I have mixed feelings about it.
He brings in a good bit of religion, but I find I can get past that by replacing "open to God" with "open to the Universe".
Where I have more issue is that he is very much pushing a one-size-fits-all application of gender roles. I will say that his masculine and feminine archetypes are very useful concepts, and it seems that a lot of the people in the audience weren't in touch with their primary masculine/feminine sides. I certainly could have gained a lot from seeing this when I was 16.
However, I think the polar extremes of gender roles should be viewed more as archetypes, raw materials for exploring different aspects of identity. As roles they are more useful in the bedroom and less useful in overall relationship dynamics. In my experience I find women more interesting if they have some of the masculine archetype (ambition, focused consciousness, drive) mixed in with primarily feminine traits. Women without a focused passion of their own are simply not as interesting. However, for me women do also need to have enough of the feminine archetype mixed in (especially visually) or I find myself less attracted to them.
To be fair, he does bring up that fact that most people do have a mix of archetypical masculine traits and archetypical feminine traits, but his solution to everyone's problem is that they're not sufficiently in touch with their primary side. He also goes so far as to almost explicitly state that the man's goals need to be the sole driving force of the relationship, which I don't agree with. This may work for a lot of people, but it's not my style. I like a little more well-roundedness from both parties in the relationship.
Separately, his techniques for exposing people are effective, but are performed with such ruthless efficiency that they're a little reminiscent of a cult leader.
Don't let any of this stop you from watching the videos though -- they are quite interesting.
---
In the end, I think of it as to some degree a false dichotomy, like some of the Myers-Briggs categories. You can be both an introvert and an extrovert, or good at both sensing and intuiting. I want to be able to fully channel masculine energy, but also be able to provide feminine energy as well. There's nothing wrong with being goal-seeking *and* radiant.
I know some of you are big fans of Deida, and I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this.