Why Religious Tools Don't Work for Women
The spiritual work of the masculine is to dissolve the ego. But that is not the spiritual work of the feminine.
You know that thing where you hear something once and then you start seeing it everywhere?
A few weeks ago I was watching an Instagram Live with author Elizabeth Gilbert and she was talking about divine masculine and divine feminine.
My knee-jerk reaction is to balk at stereotypical masculine/feminine divides because isn’t that how we ended up in this rigid gender role mess in the first place?
But I very much trust Elizabeth Gilbert, so I heard her out, and as she spoke I stopped doing the dishes. I grabbed my notebook to take notes. I found myself saying “ah-ha” and “oh yes” and “mmm that makes sense” out loud to myself in my kitchen.
I’ve decided to share her teachings with you, overly-simplistic stereotypes and all.
Here’s what she taught:
Our goal is to move from the degraded to the divine, but masculine and feminine energies require different roads to get there.
The degraded masculine is putting the wants and needs of the self above the good of the whole. It’s conquering, hoarding wealth, power hungry, greedy, selfish, violent. It’s I’m going to take whatever I want to just because I can. It’s not considering the needs of others. It’s I’m going to take over this country/have sex with this woman/level this forest because I want to. Think of a certain ex-president.
The divine masculine is putting other people’s needs above our own. It’s I could hoard resources but I choose to share. I could have power but I refuse it. I look out for the whole instead of just myself. It’s kindness, forgiveness, selflessness, compassion, empathy, listening, giving. Think Nelson Mandela, Mr. Rogers, Christ.
The degraded feminine over-gives, over-serves, is overly selfless, is used and abused. It’s I exist to give and serve. In the face of bad behavior, I will stay silent and continue to please. I will not ruffle any feathers or make anyone upset. I look out for the whole at the expense of myself. Everyone else’s needs are prioritized above my own. It’s accommodating others desires even when resentment is silently oozing out your eyeballs. Think of the mother on all TV shows and probably your mother, your grandmother, and your great-grandmother.
The divine feminine is the protector. It’s standing up in the face of injustice. It’s I will not allow oppression and abuse. It’s holy power, taking up space, speaking up, protecting against wrong-doing, ensuring equity not only for others but also for yourself. It’s honoring and protecting your own desires, rest, and goals. This is the group where examples are most scarce. When coming up with women role models we are much more comfortable holding up women who exemplify the divine masculine role and much more likely to judge women who honor their own needs. But let’s go with Ruth Bader Ginsberg or Stacy Abrams.
In sum,
In order for the masculine to move from degraded —> divine, it must give up the self.
In order for the feminine to move from degraded—> divine, it must build the self.
Unfortunately for the feminine, essentially all major religion traditions were created for the masculine. Taught by the masculine to the masculine using the words of the masculine.
Historically since religions were speaking exclusively to men, only using divine masculine tools made sense. But for the past few centuries, religions consider themselves universal- covering the needs of both masculine and feminine. Except there has been no change in doctrines or practices to accommodate or speak to the feminine. No space made for the feminine to teach feminine doctrines to females.
For centuries, the feminine has been exclusively given the tools of the divine masculine as if they are the only spiritual tools.
It does not take a great detective to whiff the scent of divine masculine teachings all over religious teachings in both the East and West:
Buddhism: see: the 5 precepts- refrain from taking life, taking what is not given, the misuse of senses, wrong speech and intoxicants.
Confucianism: see: its primary goal to create a moral society by individuals devoting themselves to virtue.
Islam: see: the meaning of the word Islam= “peace and submission”
Christianity: see: turn the other cheek, be the Good Samaritan, forgive 70 x 7
Judaism: see: core teaching of tzedakah= rescuing the weak and the needy.
Don’t get me wrong these teachings and tools of giving and charity are not bad tools. They are good tools. They just leave out the primary needs of the feminine.
The feminine has evolved with empathy tools hardwired into the body. Women tuning into to the cries of others is an evolutionary necessity for our species. It’s built in. So when tuning into the needs of others is further and further and further pushed on us - we just dissolve. We turn the other cheek so far we disappear.
It’s not the toolkit we need.
It’s why religious tools don’t work for the feminine.
They were never meant for us.
……………………
Shortly after listening to Elizabeth Gilbert teach that, I heard fellow post-mormon spiritual director Brittney Hartly (if you are not yet following her on TikTok, RUN don’t walk, she’s amazing) teach something very similar but in terms of the ego and new-age spirituality:
Tiktok failed to load.Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser
She says women are burnt out from a lifetime of service then look to new age spiritual teachings that tell them what they need is ego death. But women have spent out their lives losing their ego (literally putting their bodies on the altar of sacrifice), they need to BUILD their ego. Men have spent their lives growing their ego and need tools to lose it.
It’s so good. Watch the whole thing.
Then, another woman stitched that TikTok sharing her personal experience with Buddhism:
Tiktok failed to load.Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser
She wishes she would have understood this lesson decades ago before she dedicated years of her time and money to the teachings of Krishnamarti, Deepak Chopra, Zen Buddhist retreats and Buddhist therapists who each taught her to further dissolve her already dissolved ego.
And now I see it everywhere. I can’t unsee it. It seems so clear to me this difference between the spiritual work of men and the spiritual work of women.
Is it overly simplistic? Yes.
Are there exceptions? Of course.
Can women benefit from Deepak Chopra’s teachings on compassion? For sure.
Can men benefit from Glennon Doyle’s teachings on prioritizing your own inner knowing? You betcha.
But is it an instructive pattern to be aware of (especially when it comes to our own inner work)? Yes. It is.
Does it fit in my own life? Definitely.
And not just in the religious realm.
…………………………
I used to teach marriage courses for the Gottman Institute. With every class I found myself wishing more and more that we could divide our classes up to teach separate curriculums to husbands and wives. We kept teaching compromise, empathy, compassion, friendship. Over and over. Every class. (and yes, the curriculum- The Seven Principles to Make Marriage Work- was written by a man.)
As I taught, I kept reflecting on my own marriage. Reflecting on how compromise, empathy, compassion and kindness were the ONLY tools I was given to make a marriage work. So they were the only ones I used.
But they weren’t the tools I needed. I didn’t more compromise, I needed to learn how to make more space for myself and my desires. I didn’t need more compassion, I needed permission to set boundaries. I didn’t need more kindness, I needed someone to teach me how to say no without feeling guilty.
I had been sharpening my kindness tools since I was a small child, being handed more was like being handed a stick of butter to chop vegetables. I didn’t need any more divine masculine tools. I needed new ones.
So it killed me to only be teaching from the divine masculine toolbox. I could see clearly that husbands needed these tools. In their comments, in their role plays, I saw how they struggled to compromise, struggled to stop talking, stop problem solving and really listen, struggled to give up some autonomy for the good of the partnership. They desperately needed the divine masculine toolkit.
But the women…… they just didn’t. They needed to be taught to make space for their desires, to not accommodate every time. To pay attention to their own resentment. To treat avoiding resentment as something sacred and holy. They needed permission to make room for their desires even when it meant disappointing their spouse. They needed to be given the tools to be ok in the midst of upsetting another.
………………..
Here’s a poem I wrote:
"Be like Jesus" they said. "Ok!" I said. "Be kind. Be humble. Be forgiving. Be generous." "Ok!" I said. And when an avalanche of the needs of others came pouring down covering my ankles, now knees, now stomach, now neck- when all but my eyes were buried in all the things I was giving- my breast milk, my morning walks, a stack of books I wanted to read, an hour of rest, my attention, my problem solving skills, my home cooked chili- I looked up for guidance, desperation in my eyes "Smile," they said. "Be grateful." "Ok" I said. Guilt for not being thankful enough shoveled onto to the pile as I disappeared under the weight of all my giving.
I wish someone had told me my spiritual work was not to bring yet another plate of cookies to someone but to make my own favorite treat instead. And gift it to myself. That it wasn’t my spiritual work to say yes to volunteer at yet another school Halloween party but to say no. Say no to signing my kid up for soccer when it meant losing 4-6 precious hours of my already hectic week. That it was never my spiritual work to say yes to spend my time free time reading yet another parenting book but to say yes to paying for child care so I could write poetry.
What about you? Is this resonating with you? Have you noticed these patterns? Do you see this teaching as helpful?
Thank you so much for writing this! Yes yes yes. I was *just* listening to Liz Gilbert’s interview on the Tim Ferris podcast. One quote that I had to pause and write on a post note: “it’s the trap that women fall into - they try so hard to be “good” that they are not able to be who we actually are.” Substitute women for mothers to get even more specific and resonate.
There is a collective conscious awakening among women to these things and it feels good to be here. Please keep writing 🫶🏼
I’m not sure what I believe about timing, coincidence or idiosyncrasies. BUT! I was reading “At the Root of This Longing” by Carol L. Flinders for the *first* time yesterday and this premise was with me all day. How deeply patriarchy entangles itself into everything... It’s inescapable. And the immense shame I’ve experienced trying to become more Christlike, destroying my ego, giving more when I had no sense of self, much less anything else, to give. I don’t know if have much of an ego to dissolve. I’ve always been a daughter, a sister, a wife, a mother- titles that are relational to someone else, usually a man. I’m just barely trying to create my own identity, my own ego.
I don’t have a god-complex because society has never treated me (or probably any woman) as someone who could do whatever I wanted with impunity. I’ve never had power to yield.
Call it whatever, perhaps there is a universal, energetic realization- a waking up- of women who want to be “good” and are given a list of things they already do (often to our own detriment). And the shame of seeing the list, knowing how hard we’re trying to do more of all those things, and STILL- still feeling like we’ll never get there, so we must be broken. If I try to dissolve my ego any more, will I completely disappear?
Is this the goal? For women to be pushed into nothingness by their desire to become divine (which in my experience is synonymous with “perfect”)? Are we so, so tired yet? I am.
But I’ll not go gentle...rage, rage...