There is currently a huge controversy in Tunisia about the draft of a new constitution that promotes women complementarity instead of equity. What strikes me the most is the strength and vivacity of the violent opposition to this concept of complementarity. Even my own mom got in strong reaction to this news on TV which has nothing to do with her. Having taught about relationships for many years, I wanted to bring my own perspective to this controversial issue.
First, let’s look into the concept of equity for which people are violently fighting. If we look at what it has done in Western countries, it has brought everybody to the same level. It has removed the contrasts and colors of life, creating a society with only shades of grey. We fought for equity but we got sameness.
Sameness is not oneness. Uniformity is not unity. Unity, or oneness, is complementarity, not sameness. Sameness is uncreative… and boring.
I wrote this almost 3 years ago in this video montage.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYYpP2q6_bY[/youtube]
From a professional perspective, equity is definitely not something to aim for at a personal level. If you’re on my website, I suppose you are seeking to be the most successful person you can be in all areas of life. You are not seeking to just be like everybody else. You are not seeking average success in life. In order to live at your full potential, the first step is to break out of the equity paradigm and to break the status quo to allow your true self to shine.
Second, let’s look into the concept of complementarity which people are violently opposing. From a biological perspective, men and women have complimentary sexual organs and this is an obvious fact. From a relationship standpoint, we all have various strengths and weaknesses and it doesn’t make much sense to have relationships that don’t help with your weaknesses. As a business owner, it’s important for me to be surrounded by coaches, contractors and other people to contribute to what I’m not so good at. In those relationships, I seek complementarity, not equity. If complementarity is an obvious fact both on a biological and relational level, then it would also make sense in intimate relationships. Real complementarity means empowering each other’s lives.
The third point is where I really see a big issue about the Tunisian constitution draft, although most people are fighting about the first and second points. True complementarity means more life to all and less to none. It means more freedom to all and less to none. A way of living comes from the consciousness of the people and then reflects into the government and laws. It cannot happen the other way around. If a law is passed to impose a way of living, it necessarily means removing freedom of choice from people which violates the law of more life to all and less to none.
The Muslim viewpoint on the women complementarity has a foundation in something important but it is tainted by control, repression of freedom and repression of women. Although this article will probably not change anything to that situation in Tunisia, I cannot support either sides of the conflict and I put the legitimacy of both sides into question. The points mentioned about equity and complementarity also greatly impact men and women all around the world so I would invite you to take some time to sit on the question and to take a deep look at these concepts and how they impact your personal life.
Get our best-selling e-book Sexual Magnetism Blueprint, previously sold $147, now for FREE!
#1 by Hunt on August 14, 2012 - 8:24 pm
Quote
Wow, that smells of weasel words… do you think women should have equal opportunity, which means equal access to legal rights, equal access to the highest paid jobs if and when they want them (shamanic power has always used an element of transgressing gender norms after all) and equality when it comes to making the life they choose?
Those are yes or no questions, by the way – not “yes, but…” and “not if…” etc.
I don’t want to jump to conclusions, but if you’re saying we guys still don’t have the upper hand in 99% of the developing world, and also still in some areas in the westernised world, to the extent that, for example, a woman’s clothing is still considered a legitimate reason to rape her, whereas wardrobe choices carry no such mighty power over us – then you’re blind.
#2 by Etienne Charland on August 14, 2012 - 8:54 pm
Quote
I don’t think anyone should be limited in their opportunities in any way. So depending the way you see the question… Yes everybody should have equal access to the unlimited pool of opportunities. But no, restriction to opportunities shouldn’t be imposed equally to the population.
#3 by Hunt on August 14, 2012 - 9:40 pm
Quote
Thank you for your reply! Long-time reader, first time commenter. I’m sorry, I don’t understand what you mean by “But no, restriction to opportunities shouldn?t be imposed equally to the population.” ?
By the way I just mentioned my comment to my wife, who pointed out that two men discussing whether women should be given rights IS the problem here – what those rights are, and how and when and why they’re granted, is a distraction.
She’s right.
At no time in history have men’s legal, financial or employment rights, or our rights to dress, socialise, and act as we choose, been discussed in a comparable manner by an all-powerful cabal of women capable of enforcing their whims by law and brute force too, while female commentators look on and debate what’s in our best interests.
Natural law will find its way, but the institutions where women’s rights are most lacking are the man-made realms of employment, law, money, and culture, and for that reason absolute unconditional equality is essential – without it we’re just advocating second-class human existance to the mother of the species.
#4 by Etienne Charland on August 15, 2012 - 11:18 am
Quote
The discussion about institutions is a completely different issue than the discussion about complementarity. I will not get involved in the discussion about institutions. The question there is whether the state should provide a safety net allowing people to survive in mediocrity. On this, I could come up with good arguments on both sides but I won’t get in that conversation. I do not depend on the system anyway, and I will not accept an average life for myself.
The next question is, do rights have to be given to you by law? When you have freedom from within, emotional freedom and freedom of thoughts, nobody can take it away from you. In the same way, no law or institution can give you true freedom. Frankly, I couldn’t care less about the laws and situations of the majority of people. That has nothing to do with me, taking my own freedom, causing my success and living the life I truly want.
I would NEVER take a job that has salary equity. That would mean it wouldn’t make any difference whether I would barely do the job or whether I would do it to the best of my ability. It would mean I would have no incentive to grow. It would mean I would not have any possibilities of growth and advancement in that job… except gaining experience, leaving the job and getting another job somewhere else. A high-paying job with salary equity means an environment of mediocrity where people have no incentive to give their very best and grow. Personally, I can use such an environment for quick cash but can’t tolerate such an environment for more than 6 months. I also realize some other people only seek that stability.
I won’t get involved in how others should live their lives. That would be a waste of my energy and nobody has the right to impose their will onto others. What I’m presenting here is the way I live my life, if it may inspire others.
#5 by Rich on August 15, 2012 - 11:28 am
Quote
totally 100% agree, Etienne.
The rest of the world is still trying to rush headlong into following the West’s example, without stopping for a moment to observe or THINK just how feminism and PCness has totally screwed the family, which as Lao Tse said, is the foundation and core of Society as a whole.
Its happening in China and Korea as well, which are looking to the West as the model for everything, but why they cannot see the terrible havoc those ‘equality’ (more like *sameness* or homogenity, since I agree we are all equal, but *different*.
Lets hope we can encourage them to THINK AGAIN and not throw out the complementarity, humility and respect for the masculine which has been patently lost in the west. I saw the most horrendous video example of it yesterday:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=309048375828258
just imagine if the roles of the sexes were reversed! Would facebook allow the posting of such a clip as it has allowed this?
and yet this woman’s pages have been repeatedly deleted by facebook due to mass complaints from feminists, even though they are non-nude and in no way contravene facebook’s policies:
http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/2011/10/13/courtney-stodden-kicked-off-facebook-by-jealous-women/
There’s something very fascistic about the way facebook is operating here, in common with the rest of western culture, automatically pandering to feminism.
Feminazi is definitely the appropriate word here. I’d like to organise mass complaints against the misandry of allowing the first clip above on facebook, and the fascism of repeatedly deleting Courtney Stodden’s pages, for no reason other than the fact feminists don’t like them.
But I don’t know how one would do that. ?
#6 by Etienne Charland on August 15, 2012 - 11:30 am
Quote
You create and perpetuate what you fight against. You cannot solve an issue by fighting against it.
First you have to grow out of the frustrations, then focus on what you actually want to create.
There is also no point in spending energy on other people’s lives that have nothing to do with yours. All that energy could be spent on creating and improving your own quality of life and inspiring those around you. You would also have a greater impact in the world that way.
#7 by Richard on August 15, 2012 - 1:46 pm
Quote
I agree with you my friend. This behavior is beyond in this modern world. What really gets me is these folks think we should change to their ways! That is something I will never do!
#8 by Hunt on August 15, 2012 - 3:07 pm
Quote
“I do not depend on the system anyway…”
Really?
I’m amazed – you drill your own oil, grow all your own food, make your own clothes, AND could take out your own appendix at a pinch? Did you also build your own computer and write your own operating system?
If so, hats off – if NO, then what the men and women who do those jobs get paid, and whether (as has consistantly been the case) the women are still facing ridiculous prejudice that means talent goes unrecognised… then I’m afraid it does matter.
“The next question is, do rights have to be given to you by law? When you have freedom from within, emotional freedom and freedom of thoughts, nobody can take it away from you.”
Yes, they do have to be given by law, but you’ve probably never lived in a nation where your right to do things like walk alone down the street, or drive a car, or learn to read and write, were under threat – try promoting shamanic spirituality in a Taliban-dominated village, and as they thud home into you with the batons, as they do to any woman who tries to live an independent life, you’ll be able to investigate whether inner freedom is enough when your life is under threat.
I’ve served, I’ve seen things you wouldn’t believe in the ME & Africa, women being treated worse than anyone sane would treat a rabid dog, just for being on the streets at the wrong time.
“Frankly, I couldn?t care less about the laws and situations of the majority of people. That has nothing to do with me, taking my own freedom, causing my success and living the life I truly want.”
So, why did you comment on women’s freedom, if you don’t care? I can’t work out if you’re trying to be provocative, or are just immensely naive.
“That would mean it wouldn?t make any difference whether I would barely do the job or whether I would do it to the best of my ability. It would mean I would have no incentive to grow. It would mean I would not have any possibilities of growth and advancement in that job? except gaining experience, leaving the job and getting another job somewhere else.”
That’s a good definition of the glass ceiling women have faced for centuries in the professions, weirdly enough.
Why do you not care about insitutions, until you perceive them as threatening your personal growth? Surely if freedom is in your head, you could join somewhere that never pays above minimum wage, and be happy?
Or is it only problematic for OTHER people to address real social and political freedoms? When it’s “them” they manifested it, it’s a reflection of their inner lives – when it’s you, you would take action – is it that old canard?
Sorry if that sounds argumentative, it’s hard to work out whether you:
1. don’t care about women because you’re not one;
2. think that women deserve the lower wages, trestricted rights (enforced by baton and fist as well as social pressure);
3. something else.
I’m mystified.
“That would be a waste of my energy and nobody has the right to impose their will onto others.”
So you concede that can happen then – good.
Maybe try educating yourself about the predicament of women in the Congo, right now, see what you think about your rights versus women’s rights in most of the world.
#9 by Etienne Charland on August 15, 2012 - 3:25 pm
Quote
You’re talking about the repression of rights. I’m talking about complementarity. We’re talking about two different things. Yes, I totally agree with you, nobody has the right to take your rights away, to threaten your life, to prevent you from walking in the night, from having opportunities and all that. That does not respect the Universal law of God: more life to all and less to God.
I do not build my car and computer. These were not built by governments and laws. These were built by companies, individuals and visionaries just like me. I cannot build such things and this is why I need others who have such complementary abilities.
I live according to Universal principles. No matter where I am and no matter the situation, I can create my own opportunities. If I happened to be stuck in a country where everybody is paid minimum wage, I would either join the administration or provide something valuable to those minimum wage workers. The limitations are false evidences appearing real.
Besides the fact that we can’t solve a problem by fighting against it as we simply fuel more energy into it, I totally support fighting against repression of freedom, but I cannot support the fight against complementarity.
#10 by Hunt on August 15, 2012 - 3:47 pm
Quote
I appreciate you taking the time to answer.
“No matter where I am and no matter the situation, I can create my own opportunities.”
I think if you were a woman living under the Taliban’s system, or living in the Congo, you might realise that the consensus reality also affects you, and that to hold such a viewpoint while offering the services you do: specifically energy healing – is shaky, in terms of cohesiveness.
For a start, you could forget joining the administration: a lot of countries simply won’t permit women to join, there is no wiggle room or meritocracy at work there.
You may feel you create 100% of your own reality, but if you are selling healing to people, and I do this too, I have a private practice as a healer in Kensington, England, then you are saying that people cannot ALL, immediately, create their own desired life.
By offering healing, you are conceding that some people are damaged, or incomplete, or maybe just unaware – correct?
And if you charge money, and we all like to make good money, I know I do, then you are admitting there are things the consensus reality would deny you, if you didn’t have that money – otherwise, why go to the bother of attracting it, earning it, whatever?
I think you have the mindset of a white male who has lived in a free democratic country: that’s fine, but you might want to be aware of it when commenting on issues that affect women in developing countries where they’re treated as second-class citizens.
What you might perceive as an attractive energetic complementarity that complies with the Principle of Gender, is to some woman the thing that will make or break her ability to leave an abusive spouse, to earn her own income, or to express her God-given talents to their fullest in the career, art form or study of her choice.
I’ve served in some regions of this planet where the right to leave the house was denied women, and enforced by fist and boot and any blunt instrument handy, where women would be beaten or murdered for being the victims of gang-rape, and I know that’s hard to comprehend in a free country.
If a woman has been physically beaten since childhood, told and shown she is a second-class citizen, then please believe me she is going to be more energetically blocked than the weakest and most confused of your clients, and so to hold her to the levels of having to immediately create her reality that even people like us are constantly working on, and studying, is unjust, and a denial of her reality.
Let Tunisian women, women in general, speak from their own experience, without trying to silence them – we will never truly understand what it is to be a woman physically, mentally, or spiritually, but we can let them speak their truths.
#11 by Etienne Charland on August 15, 2012 - 8:36 pm
Quote
Now we’re getting on the issue. Complementarity and femininity have nothing to do with removing the ability to leave an abusive spouse, to earn her own income and to express her God-given talents. You’re bringing something else into the equation which has nothing to do with complementarity and femininity. What you’re bringing in are fears, weakness and submission. That has absolutely nothing to do with complementarity and femininity. It’s like confusing peers with apples. And that seems to really be the issue here. Both sides of the conflict confuse peers with apples… because complementarity and femininity are abstract topics that very few people really understand.
#12 by Etienne Charland on August 16, 2012 - 12:30 pm
Quote
I was reading The Hidden Power from Thomas Throward. "There are two kinds of submission: submission to superior force and submission to superior truth. The one is weakness and the other one is strength. It is an exceedingly important part of our training to learn to distinguish between these two, and the more so because the wrong kind is extolled by nearly all schools of popular religious teaching at the present day as constituting the highest degree of human attainment." "The attraction which the doctrine of passive resignation possesses for certain minds is based upon an appeal to sentiment, which is accepted without any suspicion that the sentiment appealed to is a false one."
#13 by Etienne Charland on August 16, 2012 - 12:57 pm
Quote
It goes on with what could resolve the core of the conflict in Tunisia if understood properly: "Submission is no longer a half-despairing resignation to a superior force external to ourselves, which we can only vaguely hope is acting kindly and wisely, but it is an intelligent recognition of the true nature of our own interior forces and of the laws by which a robust spiritual constitution is to be developed; and the submission is no longer to limitations which drain life of its livingness, and against which we instinctively rebel, but to the law of our own evolution which manifests itself in continually increasing degrees of life and strength."
#14 by Etienne Charland on August 17, 2012 - 6:01 am
Quote
Complementarity is related to femininity, which is submitting to a higher inner truth… submitting to oneself is simply Being.
#15 by Hunt on August 16, 2012 - 11:27 pm
Quote
Etienne, with respect the issue is that these people – who happen to be women – have currently GOT equal legal rights in their country. The new Islamic government is seeking to use weasel words to begin the process of undermining those rights.
You and I can talk about spirit and masculinity all day long (sorry, you’re not qualified to talk about femininity, neither am I – we”re not female, so all we can talk about there is our imagination) – but you have used this real legal issue to make deprecatory comments about these people.
In so doing, you have attracted one user who sprung that classic phrase “feminazi” – THIS my brother is the problem. The underlying hate and resentment of women, by a certauin underclass of men who are resentful because they at some point didn’t get what they wanted from a woman, or women as a whole.
Please note that in this real, legal issue, which is going on right now and inevitably WILL affect women’s rights to do things like leave abusive spouses, drive cars, etc, MEN are not being asked to become complementary to women – they keep their rights intact. If you can’t see that this is misogyny, then you are naive, sorry.
I don’t know why you are confusing the two issues so thoroughly, but you just don’t seem to be aware of the struggle so many women in the developing world face, and you (and I) sit here with our male priviledge, in our democratic country, and think we can pass comment. It’s almost obscene.
Oh, and I have no idea why you started talking about submission there – is this what you think women ought to be doing?