Rss Feed
Tweeter button
Facebook button
Youtube button

A Modest Proposal (Think About This)

In anticipation of her appearance at the EnlightenNext Midsummer Renaissance Festival in London on July 30-31, 2011, Dr. Elizabeth Debold, senior editor of EnlightenNext magazine, wrote a short, provocative piece for The Guardian that began, somewhat pointedly and rather tongue-in-cheek, with her proposal that women are at risk of turning back the clock by participating in a dangerous trend—the refusal to take leadership and actively engage in creating cultural change:

Sometimes I wonder if, 20 years hence, we as a society will decide that it doesn’t make sense to grant women coveted spots in advanced programmes in business, law, science or medicine. Because, by then, it will be obvious that the vast majority of women who are eligible for such positions—women who are extremely bright and talented—aren’t really interested in following through on their professions and taking up the responsibilities of leadership. Because it will be clear that, after receiving the benefits of 10 to 15 years of training, most women opt out, leave their responsibilities and seek fulfilment within the traditional roles of wife and mother. In the future, we collectively might shrug our shoulders and say, well, it just isn’t working to try to get women on corporate boards or as half the elected officials in government or at the top of any profession. Because women have proven, through their choices, that they would rather not.

A torrent of responses followed (read the full piece and the responses here). Rather than advocating for women’s right to leadership or for more family-friendly policies to support women at work and home, most of the responses argued for women being in the home—which is exactly the dangerous trend that Dr. Debold’s article points to.

Share This:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Buzz

Filed Under: Cultural EvolutionEnlightenNext Editors’ BlogThink About This

Tags: , , , , , , ,

About the Author

Tom Huston is the Senior Online Editor of EnlightenNext magazine. Follow him on Twitter @KosmicTom.

Comments (29)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. I don’t agree that women choosing to support their families is at all “dangerous”. On the contrary, I find that children being increasingly poorly attended by their parents, both mothers and fathers, has been one of the great tragedies of the past few decades.

    I also find this is one of problems with identity politics. It’s not about what “women” choose to do. It’s about what each individual, female or otherwise, chooses to do. It’s critically important that all individuals have a free and fair choice about what to do with their lives, of course, but beyond that, if for cultural or other reasons a disproportionate number of individuals from a particular demographic makes a particular choice, then there’s nothing inherently wrong with that.

  2. Deborah Jackson says:

    I would have expected nothing other than the range of responses triggered by the article and maybe Elizabeth did to as the goal is dialogue and awareness. At any moment we are all expressing where we are and Elizabeth is shining a spotlight on where we are within this subject. Most will defend where they are as that is their life and to do otherwise is to condemn one’s own life. It’s only in the context of consciously worked to push one’s envelope toward what’s next does a prodding like Elizabeth’s become valued. I hear the spirit of what she is saying and it will be of greatest immediate value to women who are feeling that they are on that precipice of choosing a traditional role due to a shortfall of courage and supporting scaffolding conditions to forge into taking on a new role and speaking with a full voice, that which is churning within them. For those women, the article serves a much needed purpose. For women who aren’t on that precipice, I believe it is important for them to understand the position of those who are and to greatly support them as their work will benefit all women and the planet. The women pushing the edge must also honor the traditional roles which are still being played out by the majority and to recognize how those women are changing how traditional roles are executed. Peaceful love to all. Peace is not passive. Love is not passive. Both are as powerful as anything we know. I see women as the torch bearers of peaceful love for the planet whether they yet know it.

  3. Terri Glass says:

    Any roles that we take on at this point of our evolutionary journey, must be from a sense of wakefulness. The problem of women entering a leadership position into a very patriarchal system whether it be medicine, business or law often results from burn out or becoming “man like.”
    Perhaps the greatest impact a woman can have is not enter into that system at all, but create another paradigm to work from and I see this being done with the work of Lynne Twist of Pachamama Alliance and Nina Simons of Bioneers. Why would we as women want to be leaders in a capitalistic economy that is crumbling before our eyes? Raising children to be environmental problem solvers may be one of the greatest contributions any parent, man or woman can make. If we do not have a sustainable planet first, there will be no tomorrow for humankind to lead.

  4. ~C4Chaos says:

    i’m not a woman, but as a father who shares all the household work with my wife including the very challenging task of child-rearing, i very much agree with this comment from the original article:


    “This doesn’t have to be an either/or,”

    yes it does, few except the truly exceptional geniuses achieve greatness on part-time or 37.5 hours a week.

    To reach the top even if talented takes single minded focus. You can’t expect to pick kids up from school see them much during week if you want to reach the career highs of others.

    Calling part-time flexible working doesn’t change what it is.

    Success takes hard work and talent, ability won’t take most people passed a=levels.

    Time to be grown up and accept you can’t have it all. Men never did.

    my two cents.


  5. Brian says:

    The presumption that being in the home is a dangerous trend is a very particular moral judgment, not a fact. The strong reaction to the original article may well be due to the fact that it represents a dualistic notion of what one person believes should apply to half of the planet–women–in contemptuous disregard for the rich tapestry of human life as the sum total of many interconnected roles. The notion that what is good for one is good for all causes so many of us with interests in evolutionary spirituality to bristle if not laugh aloud. That was my reaction to the article. It does not appear to represent an integrated worldview but rather an exceptionally narrow and, frankly, tiresome personal view.

  6. Jean Russell says:

    As a woman who has chosen to work and to support a stay-at-home dad for her kids, even after getting divorced, I feel like the breakthroughs that are happening for women are not being acknowledged. I stand on the shoulders of giants. What I do my mother could not have done.
    However, what women did 30 years ago to break into careers that had been traditionally male is to take on masculine characteristics – they passed as men in many ways- shouting their accomplishments and puffing up their shoulders (remember those shoulder pads in the 80s! Yikes). As the feminine moves into work and civic spaces to a greater degree, there is a shift that can’t be measured by counting sex organs. Whether we are men or women, the feminine needs to be present in all domains of culture. You can’t count her presence by counting how many women are present.
    You also can’t count the presence of the feminine by using the currency of the masculine. For example, don’t look at who is on the top of the organizational chart, look who is the network hub by which work gets done and corporate culture is defined. Don’t look for who rivaled for top sales, find out who has maintained customer loyalty.
    Yes, we need women AND the feminine in decision-making positions. But as we grow beyond the feminism that got us here, look to how it is evolving… and how we can notice and acknowledge where women AND the feminine have presence.

  7. Pam Bosch says:

    I see no reason why the current model-if there is a single model-of time spent engaging with family and career can’t be reworked to match our deeper needs and visions. I do believe that women are more nurturing and men are more competitive according to both biology and culture. But we are creatures capable of mindfulness and as such, capable of redirecting inclinations and trends. Men have learned not to simply club women over the head when they wanted sex, haven’t they? Well, without arguing the accuracy of that picture, certainly roles of soldier, priest, teacher, merchant…have changed from time to time and place to place.
    I have had the good fortune of being able to stay at home with my children in their early years and I personally believe that the needs of infants and toddlers are best served by the people who are most capable of loving them. Usually that is a parent. But that only takes a few years and probably not 24 hours a day. I think that men, at least in Western culture have access to performing this role as well as women if they desire to do so. (I think they can control whatever biological urges to hunt buffalo that might come up during the day.)
    To me, it is not the “natural state” of men and women that is in need of change, but rather the fact that there are a number of institutions that have arisen without a balance of the simplified dichotomy of gender influence that I’m calling competition vs. nurturing. Too many fields of human endeavor are based on excesses of competition to the point of depriving culture of healthy balance. As a result, so many of our enterprises are not sustainable, healthy, or nurturing to our species. Women often find that the demands of their jobs and careers run counter to their instincts, intentions, and motiv

  8. Pam Bosch says:

    Hm, too long. Here’s the rest.

    Women often find that the demands of their jobs and careers run counter to their instincts, intentions, and motivations. Maybe that’s why they just want to stay home to tend the baby. But that leaves the broader culture under-nourished. So we have medicine based on pharmaceutical profits, economics of exploitation, government of, by, and for the greedy, etc.
    Am I saying that men are to blame for the imbalance in our institutions of power? No I’m saying that imbalance is to blame. So what do we do? Maybe we should look at where we want to go and what we want our society to look like and try to figure how we get there from here. Maybe we should bring more of the female biological imperative into the social plan: The female is born with all of her reproductive capacity in her already complete ovaries that mature over the span of her adult reproductive years. The male develops his half when he reaches puberty and produces millions of sperm (that he is impelled to get rid of) every day. To the extent that biology informs behavior, shouldn’t we be consulting females about our long range plans? It doesn’t particularly matter who does the work as long as voices from both masculine and feminine imperatives are represented in the operative values of the culture. It’s ok to stay home and take care of the baby, but we should also take care of the culture that we are helping to birth. It also needs a mother.

  9. Frank Luke says:

    Humbly submitting:

    There may be those women, even wildly successful ones, who have the luxury and wherewithal to opt out and become stay-at-home moms again.

    Not all women are so fortunate, others trapped by circumstances of being single or not having a husband who can support the family by himself.

    Of course choosing to stay home to tend to the house and kids is a great choice to make but some women do prefer the career path and getting out of the house.

    What’s great is to have choice and choose options that work for all concerned.

  10. Lucy says:

    As a woman who went to graduate school and attained two advanced degrees, has held professional jobs for more than 30 years who is was also a wife and mother, I want to address this issue from the perspective of personal experience. When I was in college and graduate school, I fully intended to continue working after I had children and obtain childcare. Becoming a mother was the most rewarding event in my life. When I look back on my life and assess the happiest times, there is no doubt that the period when I was at home raising my children was the happiest time of my life. I elected to stay at home when my children were small and then returned to the workforce when they became school aged. It was a struggle working and parenting— my holiday schedule did not coincide with the school holidays, and then there were summer vacations. Balancing schedules was extremely stressful and demanding. Added to that stress was the hostility I encountered in the workplace. Hostility from women who resented that I had stayed at home with young children when they could not, and hostility from men who resented a professional woman challenging their advancement. Now that all of those days are behind me, I don’t struggle with parenting schedules, and I have no ambition for professional advancement, I find work to be much less stressful and more rewarding. I was promoted into leadership positions, and that made parenting schedules an even bigger nightmare. It also made the politics of the workplace almost unbearable. I have no desire to advance in the workplace and once again be subjected to stress from the jealousy, envy, political attacks, manipulation, and sabotage of competitive co-workers and employees.

  11. Helena Foss says:

    As a working mother myself, I simply cannot agree with Elizabeth. Instead, I agree with Oprah when she says: ‘Motherhood is the hardest job in the world. Women everywhere must declare it so.’ It is also the most undervalued, most rewarding and most important. Until our culture truly values the feminine: love, care nurturing, women will always struggle with becoming ‘leaders’ in the public sphere. Motherhood is an (unpaid) JOB. 24/7. If you don’t do it, you have to pay someone else to. It is also a fabulous spiritual path: so much of your own unhealed psychology will be reflected back to you. Elizabeth talks as if the male world of work and achievement and leadership is where women should be. No. Not until it has been redefined to accommodate the all important job of raising and nurturing our young and creating community – communities where young people are mothered by the collective and do not need to riot to make their voices heard.

  12. Nada says:

    I read through the comments on The Guardian blog site and found it interesting that some believe the last feminist movement was about the “ability to choose.” That great Wave that emerged most forcefully in the 60′s forward wasn’t about “choice,”it was about women being recognized as equals to men through the hard-won demands for legal rights concerning marital affairs,sexual harassment and discrimination,abortion,etc.The freedoms women(and men)enjoy now to “choose” their life-paths,*came from* the “rights” being established first as legal recourse.Women had to fight for equal dignities that the average man enjoyed without a thought.Fast forward to current post-modern consciousness and we see that “I have a right to choose my life” pervades every twist and turn of the decision making process.Roles are more fluid and the structures of tradition have been transcended enough that the freedom to choose “career” then/and/or “motherhood” doesn’t come with the “you must” expectations of modernism.That is both the good and bad news.

    Elizabeth’s opening line,”Sometimes I wonder if,20 years hence,we as a society will decide that it doesn’t make sense to grant women coveted spots in advanced programmes in business,etc…” It’s ludicrous to think, now in 2011,that the embedded,collective unconscious beliefs that women “are more their biological urge then they have power over,”and that “women really don’t know what they want”,has been disembeded enough to be completely transformed and inform the decision making processes of universities,businesses and politics. “Equal rights” provided a sure legal foundation, but didn’t dissolve the glass ceiling,and the subsequent “freedom to choose” has what’s left of the embedded beliefs at a standstill.Elizabeth is right in wondering…but,

    • Nada says:

      I must throw a few comments into the pool from a personal and integral perspective;

      As a woman who is nondually realized,I know that having children helped me to evolve spiritually by realizing not only my biological potential in this lifetime,but also my ability to serve the *self of the other*,and though I was never on the fast-track to a “high-powered” career,I did work professionally and could have advanced into higher management,more creative positions,but chose not to,not because I was a mother,but because Spirit was calling me to transcend culturally-dictated forces in order to advance on the path to developed enlightened awareness.I continued to work,it was important to me AND I had to,but I consciously moved into less demanding employment so my awareness was freed-up to engage spiritual emergents that required energy and ongoing contemplation.Aren’t we all somewhere on an evolutionary trajectory to realize ourselves as Spirit-in-action and the Ground of All Being?And isn’t it a strange and wonderful paradox that Spirit IS culture,but that culture must be transcended and included in order to continue on that evolutionary trajectory? “Seeking” is the nature of Eros,the evolutionary impulse,and if I as a woman am free to choose,isn’t motherhood/education/career all equal”ways,”and further,aren’t we contributing to a more Spirit-based culture when we recognize that beyond the labels we apply,like “tradition,Spirit is That Which is moving my choices with and as me?I understand that women are “being called” to create culture at the “leading edge”,but couldn’t it be that the so-called”rise of the feminine” means we also take a more forward-thinking,non-traditional look at the contributions of motherhood? Isn’t it all relevant to Spirit as cultural evolution?…

      • Nada says:

        I realized over and over again that my “liberation” had everything to do with *how* I engaged with cultural forces, and that “equality” was already granted at the deepest and highest levels of my very being. I was already equal and free and my choices contributed beyond the labels anyone was applying. Women have suffered enough from the double standard, and that we have to continue to proclaim our equality, no matter what we choose to do, only speaks to an insufficient understanding of evolution at the level of the Soul. The spiritually-based culture we desire would honor equality and quality of all life in service of the human and environmental communities, which means my “opting out” may be in service of that equality and quality,not only detrimental to it. Let’s not be one-sided in our thinking over “women and opportunity.” Let’s recognize that every Soul has things to do, and if we as a culture can support the individual evolutionary trajectory as it expresses itself through movements in and as culture, women and men won’t be subjected to the conflicting pressures that just don’t make sense anymore.

        Blessed Be

  13. zahir, australia says:

    i think there’s a strong trend amongst women to start their own business and work from home. Which means they can can do something they are really interested in, which nourishes them personally and as women. Rather than competing with men for the top jobs in the male oriented competitive capitalist world, they find their own indpendent way of expressing themselves more truly and taking responsibility for leadership in their own chosen field. In my local community women are the one’s developing a sustainable local economy, selling home grown veggie crops at local markets, taking responsibility for developing the environment, housing, education, caring for the aged and homeless, running community centres, etc, as well as being the main ones with small shops selling craft and other discretionary items, running co-operative natural health centres etc. Which also gives them time to look after their children, often in collective arrangements with other women, offering mutual support for all. I think also women are finding that they dont need to be married and dependent on a man as breadwinner to bring up their children, they can do it alone or in shared agreements with seperated partners, and this gives them independence and choice in how they want to live their lives

  14. Frank Luke says:

    Except for those rare cultures where women rule rather than the men, the West and U.S. can certainly be considered in the forefront of equality of opp for women, though we know there still needs much to be achieved.

    When we note that women have surpassed men in getting college degrees, this would seem to bode well but as we see, women are having second thoughts about whether to choose a career rather than being a stay-at-home mom.

    That women have the chance to make that choice is something that many women in other countries do not have the luxury of making. Whether to exploit that choice or not is up to each woman.

  15. Josh says:

    Women’s rights and freedom is not about requiring women to do all the things men do, including holding high level corporate positions. What makes us equal is we both have the freedom to decide for ourselves. If a woman wants to get a college education she should be allowed to. If she wants to be a CEO or run and own a business, then she should. Likewise, if she wants to be a stay home mom and focus all her energy on the kids and the house, then she should be allowed to do so without being ridiculed.

    Having the right to make a choice is freedom.

    • Frank Luke says:

      What we see can be happening is that women, like human beings come in many splendored ways. To have them enter areas not open to them traditionally, we can see some of them have the same ambition and foibles of males, esp. in power positions. The higher their testosterone level, the more an adopting of male models.

      But it can only be productive and fruitful to have the
      female perceptions and perspectives to counter the hegemony of male dominance in world affairs. This may not be totally smoothly achieved or even always positive, but necessary to have world affairs be representative of a humane humanity.

      • Nada says:

        “The higher their testosterone level, the more an adopting male models”

        Really, Frank? Do you really mean to reduce women’s assertiveness to testosterone? Do you understand the complexity of the conversation on this page? of the real, live everyday issues of women being at the leading edge of co-creating culture?

        I must make a blunt statement; most men can’t and don’t care to recognize the challenges women face;the double standards that still exist, the forces of patriarchy that try to keep women as mere appendages to “male” culture, the collective unconscious structures women have to fearlessly engage in order to “make it”, the sexism, the interior battle to do what’s “right”, etc. Look at what poor Hillary Clinton faced when running for President; Disregarding her intelligence and achievement, one moment “they” were saying she was to hard and man-ish, the next, too soft and emotional. Women (and men) can be both things and still make good, rational decisions.

        Can we please get beyond the “ignorance” that hormones rule?


        • Frank Luke says:

          As you point out, Nada, there are other factors than the level of testosterone in determining ambition and drive in a woman’s makeup but I’d say it’s a leading suspect.

          As I submitted previoiusly, women in the west have the possibility and luxury of choice in determining their fate and can also change minds when they’ve experienced a role enough and want to experience more. It takes guts, determination, fierce competition and all traits we usually associate with males. That women can also take on or possess these traits I would attribute to higher testosterone levels than women less motivated to pursue those goals in a still-man’s world.

          • Nada says:

            My friend Frank; I don’t think you completely understand what you’re suggesting and perhaps it is more your perception of “aggressive” women which has created a belief about testosterone as causation.

            Let’s take this from your physiological perspective first; Women have constant fluctuating hormonal levels all geared toward the release of an egg for fertilization. Women naturally have testosterone just as men have estrogen, and whatever the level may be, if a woman is indeed having healthy menstruation,her testosterone level is then fluctuating and therefore not constant.In other words,testosterone would not be at a constant level and therefore not a reliable source of causation for “taking on male models.”Also,considering this post is about motherhood and work, an elevated testosterone level in a woman might possibly make it more difficult to even conceive without going on hormonal therapy; a woman with excess testosterone may not even be menstruating.

            Second; Eros(prajna or chi),which at the physical level is the drive to procreate,is also the energy of aggression, assertion,fearless engagement and transcendence,the Ascending(God)current,available to both genders equally,BUT,since men have traditionally been allowed their aggression and women were culturally conditioned to be “sweet, gentle, loving” creatures, Eros in women has been repressed, granted, by their agreement on pain of being outcasts or physically harmed, etc. But women came to realize that this was a complete imbalance in their psyche’s, hence the feminist movement, and hence, women becoming free to engage their very natural interior drive or Eros. Women had to fight to break the bonds of conditioned patterns,fight for equal rights to marital property,equal pay(which still hasn’t happened)cont…

            • Nada says:

              …so reducing life force energy to testosterone does not figure with the development of higher intentional value systems and, hence, debases the intelligence of women and their own natural interior drive of transcendence or Eros. Intention and value systems are independent lines of development and are not dependent upon something like testosterone to energize them. This, my friend, is a very male perspective, and it convolutes women’s eagerness to succeed and right to freedom by once again suggesting women are “partial” beings trying to become men. From my own transformative experience with Eros, like a bulldozer pushing me through stage after stage, I can tell you this is complete bullshit! Let’s not reduce Spirit’s own God-force energy to a physical causation!,but instead, recognize that the freedom and will to choose transcends physical impulses when awareness of those impulses have been integrated, and the individual, male or female,can see and feel that their motivation is much more subtle than a hormonal drive. The Eros or God of our souls needs and wants us to grow, change and evolve;our bodies are the vehicle, not the Source.

              I could say more, but I’ll let it be for now. Please contemplate your belief system so that you may be free of it.

              Love to you(;}

            • Frank Luke says:

              Hi Nada,

              As I understand, men and women both have testosterone and estrogen. What I’m saying is that those women who have higher levels of testosterone, considered a male hormone, may be more successful in fields which require those attributes that will allow for their success in a still “man’s world”.

              I’m somewhat taken back by your not accepting this.

            • Frank Luke says:

              Hi Nada,
              Hi Nada,

              You brought up Mrs Clinton as being considered mannish and then more feminine at times. I think that doesn’t disprove what I’m saying but that her testosterone level must be pretty high compared to women with lower levels. I don’t discount cultural influences but I contend that only reinforces the testosterone levels a woman may have.

              I’m taken aback by your firm pushback on this. I may be proven wrong and let scientists confirm or refute my unscientific opinion.

              Are you basing your opinion on science or not?

              • Frank Luke says:

                Hi Nada,

                Do you have a response to my last comments?

                It’s been awhile since I posted them. Does your not replying mean you’ve conceded to my points?

            • Nada says:

              …etc.,(and,oh yes,I need to add;women were expected to be obedient and follow the directive of men…especially one’s husband. Did you know,all the way into the 1980′s,that a man could legally rape his own wife?) So reducing life force energy to testosterone does not figure with the development of higher intentional value systems, and hence debases the intelligence of women and their own natural interior drive of becoming and transcendence or Eros. Intention and value systems are separate lines of development and not dependent upon something like testosterone to energize them. This is a very male perspective, and it convolutes women’s eagerness to succeed and right to freedom by suggesting women are “partial” beings trying to become men. From my transformative experience with Eros(and Agape),like a bulldozer pushing me through stage after stage, I can confidently say that testosterone was not the driving force of my “becoming.” Let’s please not reduce Spirit’s own God-force energy to physical causation!,but instead, recognize that the freedom and will to choose transcends and includes physical impulses when awareness of those impulses have been integrated, and the individual,female or male, can see and feel that their motivation arises from a source much more subtle than a hormonal drive. The Eros or God of our Souls needs and wants us to grow,change and evolve;our bodies are the vehicle, not the Source.

              I could say much more, but will leave it there for now. Please contemplate your own subtle drive so you can free yourself from your belief about testosterone.

              Love to you(;}

  16. Cat Wilson says:

    Power and leadership come in some quiet places. Whereas I used to think it was the president of a company who ran the show, many times it is the influencers in the background. Women live their lives in phases. People live their life in the times when their attention is needed where they are now. It could be the time for a family, an education, learning tai chi, working, pursuing learning piano, writing a book… every woman is different. Some women I know are late in life in picking up the shadow selves they suppressed so they could have successful families. Afterwards there is time to be a leader and even better the wisdom is there to play such roles. If the article instantly insights something in me it is to look around in all the places where men may not recognize power and leadership roles women are already playing. This goes for the author of the article. I believe she has a positive intention in making others more conscious of their choices and reminding them that women are so much more than they know. Yet we all do what we need to do when we need to do it.

  17. Nada says:

    I really appreciate all the smart answers posted here, but want to revisit Elizabeth’s “tongue-in-cheek” comment about women “opting-out to seek fulfillment in the traditional role of wife and mother.”

    Perhaps she felt the need to play the Terrible Mother, taking the potentially dark side of a future not yet manifested; issuing a warning to her female children, “Don’t turn back the clocks on women’s progress by opting-out.” This I understand and support. We know there are those who disdain the progress of women as equals to men, not because those women have taken on “male” qualities, but because they’ve contacted and realized the masculine qualities that reside within their very own psyches in union with their feminine qualities, and these women are not willing to back down from anything. These women have had to fight twice as hard as their male counterparts for the ground they’ve gained. Those who would return women to their “rightful place” in the home are always seeking ways to undermine women’s power…and we know there are women,not just men, very invested in this undertaking. Those who masquerade as “feminists,” all the while supporting patriarchal culture.The energy they invest lives in the collective unconscious as much as any other movement, and it is only by the continued concerted effort to apply an opposite,evolutionary force that their energy is challenged.The Terrible Mother roars as much as the Good Mother whispers…they are One.

    Let’s remember,too,that while the womb is the organ of manifest life,The Womb is the Great Symbol of Life, and that symbol can be consciously realized through the womb, by carrying a soul within it and giving birth to that soul,just as the Unmanifest Ground births us in every moment.God/dess seeks itself as constant birth…

    • Nada says:

      …and let’s also not forget that every fulfillment is relative and partial until it is Absolute and Whole, and that every relative and partial fulfillment comes with the energy of discontent in order to force a continuance, a movement from contentment to seeking…again and again, over and over; Wholeness is the Ground and the Goal,and if we are willing to fearlessly affirm and move with these energies, they will carry us Home to see our Original Face, our True Nature. Not a dream or fantasy or delirium, but an Actuality of Peace and Purpose. Avoid not the Life that reaches and yearns, that is born and dies in and as you, but greet it as yourself; Was it not you who chose to spring into Form – from and as – Emptiness?