I spent many years in Arabic countries where social problems are different from the West now, especially women’s question; and always I supposed to my friends from there that everywhere in the world, women, in different periods of time, had the same troubles…
Rudolf Steiner was one who described the essence of this social problem and I consider his words from chapter 14 (Individuality and Genus) as one of the best in this subject and what is important, still very actual in our diverse world:
“It is impossible to understand a human being completely if one takes the concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment. The tendency to judge according to the genus is at its most stubborn where we are concerned with differences of sex. Almost invariably man sees in woman, and woman in man, too much of the general character of the other sex and too little of what is individual. In practical life this does less harm to men than to women. The social position of women is for the most part such an unworthy one because in so many respects it is determined not as it should be by the particular characteristics of the individual woman, but by the general picture one has of woman's natural tasks and needs. A man's activity in life is governed by his individual capacities and inclinations, whereas a woman's is supposed to be determined solely by the mere fact that she is a woman. She is supposed to be a slave to what is generic, to womanhood in general. As long as men continue to debate whether a woman is suited to this or that profession “according to her natural disposition”, the so-called woman's question cannot advance beyond its most elementary stage. What a woman, within her natural limitations, wants to become had better be left to the woman herself to decide. If it is true that women are suited only to that profession which is theirs at present, then they will hardly have it in them to attain any other. But they must be allowed to decide for themselves what is in accordance with their nature. To all who fear an upheaval of our social structure through accepting women as individuals and not as females, we must reply that a social structure in which the status of one half of humanity is unworthy of a human being is itself in great need of improvement.
Anyone who judges people according to generic characters gets only as far as the frontier where people begin to be beings whose activity is based on free self-determination. Whatever lies short of this frontier may naturally become matter for academic study. The characteristics of race, people, nation and sex are the subject matter of special branches of study. Only men who wish to live as nothing more than examples of the genus could possibly conform to a general picture such as arises from academic study of this kind. But none of these branches of study are able to advance as far as the unique content of the single individual. Determining the individual according to the laws of his genus ceases where the sphere of freedom (in thinking and acting) begins”.
Good to read
Hi Olga,
Thanks for placing this on the website, one can never read it enough.
Cheers,
patri
Anima Animus
Hi Olga and Patri
This topic reminds me of Jung's anima / animus : The male pysche perceives the feminine personification of the world (anima) and the female pysche perceives the male personification of the world (animus) A brief contemplation of this may be - it is good for the male to connect with his anima within and likewise for the female to connect with her animus within and with this understand one another in a different or correct light.
I do think any suppression of women is not good but also on the other hand there is also suppression of men. With this, as being female, I respect St. Paul's writings on the Man is the head. I don't think this should be viewed as the man being dominant in a bossy way but more the head in strength and protection. If we look at old poetry literature on - the women is the soul and the man is the spirit - and contemplate the old writings where it is said God spoke to the women and the women whispered the words into mans ear we understand St. Paul's teachings on man is the head. A wonderful working together of the genders - which unfortunately seems a bit lost today in both the woman being dominant over the man and the man been dominate over the women.
regards
Caryn
St. Paul and the Head concept
Hi Caryn,
What St. Paul communicated is that the man should be the leader of himself, and the woman should be the leader of herself. In other words, we hold dominion over no one but our own individual self. If you read the words of the New Testatment (the words that Christ spoke), there it is made very apparent that we each are responsible for our own individual karma and hold dominion over no one but only over our own individual selves. We serve others through love for the deed, in whatever way is in our capacity (be it motherhood, or working for Anthroposophy in the world as many of the first pioneers in anthroposophy were women who chose not to have children). St. Paul was writing out of the cultural aspects of his time (the time in which he was going around giving these talks). The words of the Christ come from the heart of the Godhead and are equal to all, men and women alike for all time.
Al far as Jung is concerned, all this anima/animus business is a little boring. As Rudolf Steiner so clearly indicated in PoF we are each responsible for making our own karma in the world and being responsible for our own karma in the world, no one else can take up this task for us. The Christ is the Lord of our individual karmas. To understand the other is to look at the other's heart. It doesn't matter whether you are male or female, what matters is what truth lives in your heart. We cannot put our responsibility for our karma or the way we choose to live and conduct our lives on anyone else but ourself, this is the first law of true freedom.
P.S. You should know that the first person the Christ appeared to in the etheric was Mary Madalene. There is a great spiritual reason for this.
"But there were radical ideas floating around in early Christianity that suggested that gender hierarchy had been dissolved through baptism into Christ for a new humanity beyond gender. This is expressed in the baptismal formula used by St. Paul in Galatians 3:27-8: "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Rosemary Radford Ruether).
Best regards,
patri
Life
Hi patri
Thanks for the post.
Yes, I totally agree we are responsible for our individual self. My post was not suggesting women is not responsible for her own actions. However, I still think St. Paul wrote man is the head for a reason : 1 Corinthians 11:3 'But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God'. v4: 'Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head' v5: But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head'.
The head is where we think and generally men are more objective or active and women are more subjective and passive. The head is denoted to Aries, the pioneer and starter of things, ruled by Mars. Mars represents the physical side of life and energy and is essentially the male planet. Mars is an index of how quickly the physical energies may be called into play as a result of disturbances on the physical or astral plane. I do believe it is for this reason St. Paul tells us the man is the head because of man's objective thinking.
But possibly we don't need to get to profound in thought here and like you said, we are all in one in Christ.
My love
Caryn
Totally Disagree
Dear Caryn,
Of course, I totally disagree with the way you think about this, and feel this kind of thinking is backward and doesn't help women. I don't believe everything Paul said is absolute truth and I also know that a lot of his so-called writings have been discredited as not really coming for him.
Let's agree to disagree on this one.
Wishing you the very best.
Cheers,
Patri
Well
Hi patri
It is your freedom to disagree with the way I think and honest comment is always appreciated. Personally I don't see it as backward thinking for women - it's my thought most women appreciate the man being the head but this is my point of view of course.
No, the writings of St. Paul didn't come from him - as Steiner tells us in the Jesus and Christ lecture: 'A path of development must now be followed that does not lead us into egotism and pride but that remains within the element of love. This truth lies at the foundation of St. Paul's significant words, “Not I, but Christ in me.” '
While we talking about St. Paul Steiner also tells us this in his lecture 'The Meaning of Easter: St. Paul and the Christ Impulse'
'In order to see the whole matter in a true light it will be necessary first of all to consider the part played by the figure of St. Paul in the evolution of the Christ Impulse within the whole history of mankind. We should indeed remind ourselves again and again what a great event in the evolution of Christianity was the appearance of the figure of St. Paul'.
Truthfully; it is not for me to say what is or what not is discredited.
Thanks for the chat.
Caryn
Religion as an excuse not to think for oneself
Hi Caryn,
What I really dislike about religion is how some people use it so literally and do not think it through for themselves what is being said or offered. I, for one, have a respect for Paul in his bringing Christianity to the forefront, but I do not, and need not agree with everything he supposedly said or did not say. For me the Christ, the Cosmic Christ, is available to all, not just so-called Christians. I really dislike discussing religion with people who do not have an open mind, so let's agree not to discuss Paul or religion together.
Best regards.
Cheers,
patri
Rights
This wonderful passage for me brings up the question of rights in general for those seeking to join a particular profession (perhaps almost an outmoded word nowadays?).
Anyway, what I mean is:
Regardless of what the barrier is, whether cultural background, lack of educational qualification, physical disability, gender etc. etc., to what extent should ability be the deciding factor in selecting a person for a profession?
I see straight away that the question's somewhat loaded... for example, it presupposes that someone is given the task of evaluating a person's suitability to join a profession. In actual fact, many many "professions" are not joined that way - just think of the many ways (most of them not easy, I think) a person can come to earn a living in the music business, for example.
But if we look at this in terms of the Threefold idea, I wonder to what extent the selection of a person for a profession falls into the spiritual sphere (and therefore would presumably be subject to the dynamics of competition), the rights sphere (where equality holds sway) and the economic sphere (where fraternity or sisterhood/brotherhood is operating).
Splitting those out:
Competition: In this arena the individual must be given the freedom to prove themselves able to perform the task. Unfortunately, the word "competition" has taken on a negative connotation for many today due to its frequent exclusive connection with the economic sphere. In essence, I think competition is a necessary human activity, not a Darwinian principle blindly driving our economy.
Rights: In this area, fairness is paramount - this is where, for example, company recruitment and human resource policies can recognise the needs of different individuals and cater for diversity.
Fraternity: The person's needs must be met - but equally, the needs of others in society must be met. An economic balance must be struck, for example in terms of remuneration as compared to the value of what is produced and also the needs of the individual.
In reality, I think we find that for most of us all of these areas play a part in the profession we end up in. Many people try (and succeed) in joining professions like medicine, for example, just because they want the income and social standing that come with it - but such people often actually care little about the fundamental activity of truly healing the human being, at least at the beginning...
They may have proven that they have a certain mechanical facility for the activity of medicine as it is practiced today, but are they the "best" doctors? How do we determine that anyway? Aren't exams, job interviews, etc. still partially in the "rights" sphere because of the requirement for so-called "fairness" which can actually be a kind of hidden unfairness?
In line with this example, it may in fact be that the truest vocations, those which are most worthy of the human being, are those which we determine out of ourselves - and then, seeing that this has occurred, perhaps other free human beings will agree that we have found our vocation, regardless of what it is or how it manifests itself.
Vocational rights
Very interesting questions. I agree with what you said about the truest vocations being those we determine out of ourselves, and then their is the karmic element at play. The idea that we have certain karmic duties/lessons to be played out in this incarnation, and how that applies to work and vocation.
Cheers,
patri
Vocation vs. callling?
I have thoroughly enjoyed this thread. I was brought up by a single working mother with 3 brothers at the time of my father’s death in 1968. She had a career and was able to provide for family. She passed in 2006 and would thoroughly love this website and particularly this series of posts. We talked for many years about the difficulties that men and women face, both morally and spiritually, in the current working world. She reminded me of how our whole family was brought up. Simply, we were taught that our calling in life was not necessarily our vocation and to live our lives according to our ‘real work’. Mine seems to be tied to Anthroposophy. I loved the quote below from Nelson Mandela because it addresses the many discussions my mother and I had about our place, both male and female alike.
“Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, Who am I to be, brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small doesn’t serve the world. There’s nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won’t feel insecure around you. You were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within you. It is not just in some of us; it’s in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same, As we’re liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.”
thanks all for the post
Cisco
That Caryn Louise chooses
Fabulous post Olga, and extraordinary discussion, which I can't help but join in...
That Caryn Louise chooses to play a supportive role in a family environmnet that is led by a man is a beautiful thing, but to suggest that this is because it is the right thing for her to do because she is a woman is, in my view, dangerous and actually works against her plea regarding the excesses of feminism. Masculinism and feminism are polar positions which both subjugate the ego and render the advocate unfree. All the time I hear comments like "women are more sensitive", "men are more logical", but when you examine the individual case you find that these comments just don't stand up. Some people are more thinky than feely - perhaps more of these are men are women, some people are more feely than thinky - perhaps more of these are women than men. Perhaps? How can we know? All we can ever even approach to knowing is the individuals we actually meet.
The other problem with "because I am a woman" (whatever the authority) is what we witnessed here: it draws in, by implication, all other women. That inevitably creates a reaction from any women who don't want to be controlled by someone elses view - even if they might secretly agree with it! The solution to the problem that "perhaps some women are longing to play a supporting role" would be unlikely to be found in a male-liberation movement. But it can be found in the contemplation and pursuit of freedom.
I've experience of men who view themselves as very logical and so in control of their emotions that they can't say for sure that they actually have any feelings. Then something happens and their life disintegrates and they have to rebuild and discover that... they do have feelings after all, and their thinking isn't actually based in logical planning so much as very clever post-even rationalisation... I don't know whether it's social conditioning or hormones or what, but it doesn't matter how things look, when the crisis comes and the soul has to be searched, men have JUST AS MANY FEELINGS AS WOMEN, and WOMEN CAN BE JUST AS LOGICAL AS MEN because WE ALL HAVE FEELINGS AND THOUGHTS. WE ALL HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO BE FREE.
I'm so angry about this, because sexism is part of my lived experience. Although tonight I have been reading the Koran, the truth is that whilst living and working in rural Worcestershire I don't have much contact with people who aren't white or Christian, I do however work with men and women, and witness first hand the folly of makeing life decisions on the basis of masculinity and femininity.
I have worked with men who are convinced that talking stops women from doing anything and never notice when they are stuck, talking endlessly because of a feeling they can't acknowledge because feelings are things that women do. I have worked with women who have discovered that free from imposed expectations that trap them there is no apparent limit to what they can achieve.
The truth is that, from a men's liberation point of view, the "old-fashioned" status of men "as the head" is as much a trap for the men as for the women. What if you are a man who doesn't want to be the "head"? What if you want to be the supporter?
Sexual stereotypes are such a convenient protection from the fear of having to actually find out who you really are. I absolutely love that quote from Nelson Mandela, the first time I read it, it made me cry. A quote from a friend and colleague of mine Bruce Irvine: "it isn't that we are human beings trying to discover the spiritual, it is actually that we are spiritual beings trying to discover our humanity."
I have found that the film "What Women Want" is quite often derided, but I'm not sure why, because it shows really clearly, an individual woman thinking and feeling and leading a man, by example unbenknonst to her, in to the discovery of his feelings (through the reflection of the feelings he creates in others) so that he discovers who he really is and in so doing opens a path for him to become more fulfilled. He didn't actually become less of a man, and she wasn't less of a woman for being successful.
As I said at the beginning, I'm convinced that Caryn Louise's role in her family life is the perfect role for her. I've had to play the role of mother (for a few days a week), and it was very interesting, empowering and developing for me, nevertheless, as my 1st son grew older I have relished the burgeoning of my father role. No, my point is not that mothers and fathers should be the same, my point is that if we allow ourselves to find our roles according to who we are as individuals, rather than take on external models out of obedience to a higher external authority, then we will perhaps discover more about what it is to be human, to be the I AM that I am.
This leads (there isn't time to explain how right now) to a very important question about what an organisation is, and how far does the 3-fold reach. My hunch is that it reaches right through all human systems, and that every family is an organisation that is operating according to the principles of the 3-fold... Happily, I don't have much time for writing on this POF website at the moment because we have a 3 week old Theo Parsons to look after, but I am most certainly looking forward to developing that thought further....!
Performing the role that Caryn Louise performs is an action (or a series of actions), and I would like to quote from Chapter 9 of POF:
...I ask no man and no rule, "Shall I perform this action?" - but carry it out as soon as I have grasped the idea of it. This alone makes it my action. If a man acts only because he accepts certain moral standards, his action is the outcome of the principles which compose his moral code. He merely carries out orders. He is a superior automaton. Inject some stimuls to action into his mind, and at once the clockwork of his moral principles will set itself in motion an drun its presecribed course, so as to result in an action which is Christian, or humane, or seemingly unselfsih, or calculated to promote the progress of civilization. Only when I follow my love for my objective is it I myself who act. I act, at this level of morality, not because I acknowledge a lord over me, or an external authority, or a so-called inner voice; I acknowlege no external principle for my action, because I have found in myself the ground for my action, namely, my love of the aciton.
There is so much in a family that be carried out with love... This is the freedom pivot point. "I act because I should" is transformed to "I act because I love the purpose". The situation and behaviour can look absolutely the same, but the inner experience is completely different.
Men's liberation point of view
Hi Sebastian,
Thanks for the men's liberation point of view, it made interesting reading. I agree with what you have expressed here. It is the matter of choice, a person man or woman is free to chose, to be an at home mother is wonderful, if you chose it in freedom, to be an at home father is wonderful if you chose it in freedom. Sometimes life presents events to us that we think we do not chose, being a single mom or dad for example, but we change that around when we consciously chose what we have and love it, creating the best situation for our self and our families. Allowing for the other to be free in their karmic path even if it may differ from what you want for yourself or what you have is important.
"To live with love for the deed, and to let live in understanding the will of the other, is the fundamental attitude of the free human being." (Steiner in PoF).
Congraulations on Theo.
Bes regards,
patri
Three-Fold Organizations
I don't know much about the 3-fold model. I read one book but it didn't really sink in. I have the memory of three circles arranged in a formation so that they all overlapped but also so that parts of them were free and clear. I suppose that it would be easier to grasp the ways that the circles are separate and then see how they work together.
I guess that at our farm we do governing activities (to make sure that everyone's rights are considered) as well as the cultural activities of farming as an art and of course the economic thing as well. The economic aspect is the overriding one, partly because our society has distorted the meaning of food and made it cheap. Therefore we have to concentrate our efforts in that direction more than we would like, simply in order to survive as a business. But the distorted society is one we have to live in and work within. It's just a fact of life, like weather, water fees, and all the other facts we deal with. So any organization with its three folds has to fit into the larger society as well.
Economic Sphere
Hi Lori,
It's probably the topic for a new post... my recollection of the threefold society is that the economic is actually the most spiritual in that it is compared with the head of the human organism.
This seems rather paradoxical initially in that you might expect that the spiritual sphere would be compared to the head and nervous system, and the economic would be compared to the limbs and digestive system, but it isn't the way Steiner presents the idea.
Again, as with my earlier comment about the word "competition" having become debased, perhaps "economy" is also debased... from my understanding a healthy economic sphere would be focussed on fraternity, not the almighty dollar. I have to sympathise with you with the pressures that work upon you in running your farm - in that I'm sure that much of the produce of your farm would, inevitably, be much more valuable in a true sense in that (I hope) it would promote better health through the strengthening of life forces rather than being the shiniest, biggest produce that looks nicest in the supermarket and therefore fetches the best price.
I don't think "economy" in Steiner's sense necessarily lines up with what economists often mean... the free play of "market forces" and so on. I think it's about a oneness, one world and so on, that people are gradually beginning to wake up to for many reasons. While we can certainly think of many bad examples in this area, e.g. international drug company behaviour towards third world countries, we can also think of good examples, e.g. fair trade initiatives, micro enterprise initiatives in third world countries and so on. Slow but sure progress, hopefully, I think it all helps build for the future, including what you are doing over there on your farm.
Heady Economics
Hi Tim
I'd also have thought that economics would be the circulatory system because money is always said to be its lifeblood, but on the other hand it being the head makes tremendous sense because what is money but a complete abstraction? And human heads are capable of being enterprising and creative, but also hard and erroneous so much of the time, while our other body systems are under the wise guidance of something beyond our control (at least, mostly and so far.)
We're incredibly lucky to be located where we are, in an area where there are lots of people who want to buy organic food and support small-scale local farmers. We sell mostly through farmers markets and small natural food stores, and get very high prices compared to what the ordinary wholesale market would bring. And because we're so small, only 20 acres, we can be certain at all times of the quality of our produce, because all the people who work here care about it, because we care about them, and again that's because we're a small business.
So we've nothing to gripe about, because the luxury of meaningful work is ours, and is worth the effort. Some of the larger economic sphere works entirely in our favor. If there weren't all those people in Berkeley and Palo Alto and even here in Santa Cruz with both the love of good food and the cash, we'd be scratching our heads wondering where to sell our stuff. Because of our tiny scale, we can't compete with the thousand-acre farms at the wholesale level, though we run circles around them with what goes in our boxes.
Where the outer economy does us in (and it's not even something that we normally think about, because we have way too many other things to think about!) is that we couldn't buy our farm, even if it was for sale, because land around here goes for about a hundred thousand dollars an acre, because people want to live here. Some of the same people who want to buy our produce can afford to pay a half a million for an old one-bedroom house! That is, they think they can afford it, because the value keeps rising and they can borrow on their equity to meet their mortgage, because it's a real estate bubble.
So we can't complain about that either; because when you pick up one end of the stick you also pick up the other! If we could buy the farm, or even get a long-term lease, we'd be doing things quite differently -- we'd have trees, animals, the parts of the farm organism that a real biodynamic farm needs. But then everything else in the world, or at least in California, would be different as well, and maybe we'd go out of business for some other reason.
We can't even count our blessings, there are so many of them. I suppose every business just grows out of the reality of its surroundings the way a plant grows, within certain limits but always looking for the light, air, and water that it needs. There's definitely a tremendous amount of destiny involved, but also creative human freedom. As Patri said in a recent post, the freedom may be to choose what your destiny has brought you to. So in the context of making our fate our will, and of working our spiritual concepts into the material world, instead of vice versa, I'm hoping to learn a lot from this group Sebastian has started and we're all participating in.
It's easy to be unhappy
It's easy to be unhappy about what you haven't got, it's much harder to be happy about what you have got!
quote
Hi Cisco
That is a great quote from Nelson Mandela! This is one of my favourite quotes from him- "The greatest glory in living lies not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall." - Nelson Mandela
my regards
Caryn
Glory be..
Hello Caryn,
thanks. Nelson Mandela is a very important person in our world. He not only speaks from the heart, he speaks from experience and without anger nor bitterness. He is a living example of compassion and forgiveness. In light of that, I appreciated reading Sebastian's post above about being happy with what you have. I cannot count the times in my life that I felt great joy and relief when overcome by a feeling of gratefullness. Regarding many Mandela quotes I found that they are extremely more meaningful and powerful when spoken aloud and spoken in context to one you love.
Mandela loves the word Glory.. and if you look at some of the dictonary meanings this one shines: high renown or honor won by notable achievements. Personnaly I love to be inspired to acheivement by others and am keenly interested in peoples stories of falling short of their goal. There is always something to be learned from near success. Some people complain that certain pathways to power and rank are closed. For my part I have neither the inclination nor the ruthlessness to attain certain vocational positions in my world. I am gratefful for my position in life and see no ladder worth climbing at this time. The cost is far too dear.
My grandmother used to say, "You have a place and will find it some day, it is there waiting for you. Put one foot in front of the other and do one thing every day and you eventually will arrive." Her last words to me at 91 years were, " I will go before thee and make the crooked straight and the rough places plain and bless you dear boy"
Ciao,
Cisco
Cisco, What beautiful last
Cisco,
What beautiful last words from your grandmother! Thanks for sharing them with us!
Discussion, truth and…miracle.
Hello Patri, Caryn, Tim, Cisco, Sebastian and Lori !
Thank you very much for a great, interesting discussion about human rights.
I agree with all of you even with the opposite opinions.
I think, that it’s a core - everyone has opportunities to choose own and at the same time respect other’s point of view. That’s why discussion is important.
We say that in the discussion ‘born’ the truth.
Sebastian , congratulation on Theo!
A child – that’s a miracle!
Love
Olga