there's no such thing as a "perfectly balanced" ILP. and i don't think that's even the goal of ILP. we naturally start with the practices that we gravitate towards to. then move on to other stuff that scares us. but "perfect balance" is an illusion, inside and outside.

i remember a conversation once had with a Zen teacher. he said that there's no such thing as "balance of nature" because if there's balance, there's no movement. sweet.

But is ILP hypermasculine in your opinion?

And yes, I completely agree with the myth of the "balanced" ILP.

i can see why there's this misconception. because ILP is based on a hypermasculine, theory.

but ILP is gender-free, imho.

it's hypermasculine only to the point of picking up the practices that one will choose to engage.

so instead of pointing out its hypermasculinity, why not engage it, trancsclude it, and put some much-needed femininity in it? :)

The thing is coolmel, your 'ho' that ILP isn't hypermasculine doesn't change the fact that alot of women find it so.

In a recent conversation, you know the one that starts with someone saying "all that integral stuff seems so hypermasculine and i feel exluded in your inclusive model".. which was followed by my unskillfully debating the fact the feminine IS most definitely included, but that maps themselves are a manifestation of the masculine principal and.. you get the point.

Anyway, after about an hour and a half, I finally learned something; it was the word 'practice' that was a total turn off. Gag. But think about the word - Practice: regimented, rigid, repetivite, running laps, conceptualized, firm, directed .. Masculine. Hypermasculine even.

Example: my girlfriend is love love loving learning piano. She's beside me 'practicing' right now, but the word practice isn't part of her conception of what she's doing. She gladly offered that she hates the word. She's, umm, learning, or, exploring, or, something else.

We sit together. In my mind, we're practicing meditation. In hers, we're sitting together. But 'practice' is dry, even contrived. And I (or perhaps my feminine side) have to agree to a point, and this whole conversation is causing me to look at some of my fundamental framings of my own 'ILP'..

"The thing is coolmel, your 'ho' that ILP isn't hypermasculine doesn't change the fact that alot of women find it so. "

well... unfortunately, you have a point but i can't do anything about that.

but let's say, in the ILP, the practices are: taking care of children, taking care of husband, watching Oprah, journaling, knitting, volunteering, ballroom dancing, aerobic exercise, going out with friends, cooking, [insert your favorite feminine practice/hobbies/passion] etc...

would ILP still look like hypermasculine?

we all know that, in general, men are the mapmakers (e.g. early explorers). in general, men are the map-readers (e.g. military). maybe that's why men are the last ones to ask for directions. i'm still pondering on that koan.

be well.

"Would ILP still look Hypermasculine?"

Yep. Cuz of the 'P' in ILP. That's exactly my point. Jean says she's cool with the word practice, and so is my girlfriend -- in context. She corrected me today, in that, she doesn't mind practicing piano, but her joy of learning piano is not contained within the notion of of 'Piano Practice'. So the notion of 'Life as Practice', which inspires me a great deal, falls flat with her. In fact, I had a really good (long overdue) laugh today as she took the piss out of it all. "Quadrants? Modules? Seriously?".

On a personal note, if you don't mind personal notes on your blog -- this new brainchild of mine (P=masculine) is helping us get through an important issue that's been stalling our growth in relationship. I've been interpreting her rejection of practicing, and maps and models and frameworks, as a rejection of the essence of integral. (Which would be more or less a rejection of my work as an integrally-informed coach/consultant. Which would be more or less a rejection of my purpose. And me.) I understand now she is totally NOT doing that. She loves the essence of integral. She just wishes I could present it in a more fluid, textural way that inspired her to be a part of it.

So regardless of how you and I and Jean and everyone who is ALREADY inspired by integral maps feel about ILP, I'm just saying there's a whole community of 'folk integral' women who could be inspired by the essence of this work, but aren't. And the great tragedy (to me) is that they feel excluded in the maps - even though you and I know they most certainly are not.

great to have found this little dialogue with you all btw.

Ebuddha! Boy, you're just hankering for a masculine/feminine slapdown aren't you? At least your comments on GenSit over the David Jon/Victoria dialogue, and now this would seem to indicate. At any rate, let me go put on my magic grrl power Docs, and let's see if we can sort this out.

Ok, for the freakin' record, I never said that ILP in and of itself is hypermasculine. I said the ILP Kit is hypermasculine, and to me there is a big difference. The ILP injunction is itself certainly a bit masculine, but I'm groovy with that - we all need some masculine structure in our lives. What's more, I'm actually one of the few females I know who LOVES maps, be they geographical or philosophical. However, fill-in-the-blank formulas, that parse ourselves and our lives into so many "modules," codifies what is an elegant theory and dogmatizes logos. And that, to me, is where masculine becomes hypermasculine. I don't know exactly how to explain this - as a lover of "integral" in general I want to see it set free, not turned into a board game that people set aside if it doesn't work for them exactly the way they wanted it to. Now it's true, I haven't actually seen the contents of the Kit, and it likely has genuine wisdom and instruction to be "flexible" with one's various practices - a word I've no problem with btw - but coming from a strictly feminine orientation, an actual instruction to be flexible is ironically antithetical to real flow. It cancels it out (kind of like Nevada and Utah cancel each other out by sharing a border - heard that joke on The Daily Show, ha ha.) At any rate, I want to make it clear that I respect your love of Integral Practice - hell, there's a reason you've named your blog that - and I'm not critical of ILP in general - I was serious when I said I hoped to regain some stability and various "practices," in my life. I could elaborate more on the transformational gates of hell busting open in one's pysche and life, but I realize most people aren't going to have it that bad. But I'll reiterate that transformation does sometimes require aspects of one's life and self really falling apart, so holding onto theories, practices (or anything else) too tightly is likely to make it that much more difficult. Whatever you're grasping tightly, or depending on too much, is what's going to be ripped away, mercilessly. Perhaps even more than the hypermasculine aspect, this could be the most powerful shadow to this ILP Kit.

And so. This female has finished ranting. for now.

With deep respect,
Jean

PS - I'll be posting this response at my blog too, in answer to your question.

"But I'll reiterate that transformation does sometimes require aspects of one's life and self really falling apart, so holding onto theories, practices (or anything else) too tightly is likely to make it that much more difficult."

amen to that. been there been that. long live hyper-androgyny :)

Hello!..... I found your blog while looking for a good link for the word "hypermasculine." I invite you to my blog which will soon be covering these questions in detail. <a href="http://integralevolution.blogspot.com/">Evolutionary Odyssey</a>