Authenticity vs. Gender Roles: A Spiritual Inquiry

I notice a lot of content online talk about being in your divine “feminine” or “masculine” And I’m always confused about what that means. There is always the implication that there are certain characteristics for both and those characteristics are the true essence of either a male or female. Like you are you’re most authentic and secure self if you embody these feminine characteristics if you’re a woman and likewise regarding the embodiment of masculine traits if you’re a man. But who decided which qualities were feminine or masculine? For a long time society has been and still is to many extents patriarchal, and that conditioning seeps in deeply. Into religion, into spirituality, into every crevice of life, including traits and labels and the minds of those creating them. The harm in deciding the characteristics that are wholey feminine or wholey masculine is that people decide they must not be acting like their gender if they don’t fit into these made up descriptions. Society as a whole decided what is feminine and masculine and then many in the ‘conscious’ community decided on an alternative version. But this is exactly the same thing, but dressed differently. “Stepping into my divine feminine/masculine” ends up becoming equally as harmful as accusing a guy of being gay for wearing something pink. But Pink was once considered a masculine colour in parts of the Western world, High heels were created for men and originally worn by men, Emotional expression has been considered masculine in some warrior cultures and feminine in others, Leadership, nurturing, intuition, competition, gentleness—every one of these has been associated with different genders at different times. Women should surrender, Men should lead, Women receive, Men pursue, Women are intuitive, Men are logical. I’m guilty of pigeon holing men and women into these boxes myself often enough. James often asked me if I resented that he didn’t ‘lead’ in terms of making plans, organising outings or dates. I am someone who would HATE that. I like very impulsive last min plans when I feel in the mood to make those plans. If he even attempted to book or surprise me with something in advance I would refuse to go if I simply wasn’t in the mood to do that thing at that time. We both lead in different ways. Likewise he and I are both intuitive and logical and sometimes we are none of the things and all of the things all at once or not at all… I hate any fixed sense of identity unless it helps someone else to understand me and there for helps us to co exist better. Carl Jung’s ideas about the anima and animus are sometimes cited in these discussions, but even he wasn’t saying that women should become more feminine or men more masculine. His point was that psychological maturity involves integrating the qualities we have disowned—not becoming a stereotype of our sex. Maybe we should ask instead: Am I acting from fear, conditioning, and performance—or from authenticity? Because courage isn’t masculine. Compassion isn’t feminine. Wisdom isn’t masculine. Creativity isn’t feminine. They’re human. The more we assign human qualities to one sex or the other, the more likely someone will feel defective for simply being themselves. If the goal is authenticity, then the measure shouldn’t be whether a quality is masculine or feminine—it should be whether it’s genuinely yours.

The author deconstructs the modern spiritual tendency to pigeonhole human traits into 'divine feminine' and 'masculine' boxes, arguing that these labels are often just recycled patriarchal conditioning. By referencing historical fluidity of gender associations and Carl Jung's actual theories on integration, the post encourages readers to pursue authenticity over performing societal or spiritual archetypes. Ultimately, it asserts that virtues like wisdom, courage, and compassion are universal human qualities rather than gendered ones.

I love this discussion, and have asked myself that many times! For example, in some lineages the sun is considered "masculine" and the moon "feminine". But the other day I was imagining the opposite - the sun glowing in her gown of golden rays, lighting up everything she touches, warm and illuminating. And the moon as this cold, distant, pockmarked man that's following her around trying to soak up some of her light. In my understanding the archetypes of the Divine Masculine and the Divine Feminine aren't for further polarization - where the men get more manly and the women get more feminine. It's so we can recognize these traits within ourselves and eventually move towards the sacred marriage - where two become one. And in that state of unity, we realize that the masculine and the feminine DO carry the exact same traits and qualities. It's interchangeable. From that place we can reach full freedom of expression, full acceptance, and embodiment of the fullness of who we are.

@fromseatosource So the associations of moon being feminine and sun being masculine is rooted in biology so that actually makes logical sense on a scientific level. Both the moon and women’s periods tracks a 28 days cycle, men’s testosterone peaks in the morning as the sun rises. Your imagery is interesting. I wonder if an experience you’ve had has influenced those associations? Also interesting that you see the frameworks as something that leads to unification… something potentially liberating… as a-pose to my view of it being confining. My understanding of your take is where you see the framework as something that navigates feminine and masculine traits within all of us that can complement the Masculine and feminine traits within another. I think a framework can do that without naming them as masculine or feminine but rather one polarity and another opposing polarity and explaining how they both can be neutralising and complimentary in a way that opposites attract rather than be at war with one another. I don’t see any benefit to labelling them as masculine or feminine. I only see logic where symbolism has mimicked biology