I promised myself long ago not to get into "sex" issues because it would be consuming and overwhelming of my time and energies. I rather chose "fear" issues. I don't regret that necessary decision. Over the years I have come to work from an analogy of sexuality to fearuality. But despite my attempts to stay somewhat distanced from sex(ism) issues, that has been impossible and recently I have been 'pulled in' again. I'll explain later. I nearly have to laugh at myself, now and then, of how much females have influenced my life (I wrote an unpublished book ms. on this in the mid-90s, that I may publish someday) and my 2003 dissertation was written from a cyber-feminist lens, believe it or not. At some level, I am obsessed with the "female" perspective, as problematic as that is to define and defend--I live in flesh-blood relationships this obsession with liberating the female, feminine, feminist orientations (and, also its implications to W. society as a whole and to males, masculine, masculinist orientations)--read on...
I begin this blog with a quote I hold to dearly as the meta-context for any work on liberation (which I do): "If race, class, and gender are articulated in a matrix of domination [see Patricia Hill Collins] in modern societies, we must develop practices and theories that fit this reality...". (Bonilla-Silva, 2006, p. 114) [1]
This blogpost is about two young Gen Y women, "rising stars," who have cut their teeth (so to speak) from the world of Integral Theory (a la Ken Wilber) and the overall Integral Movement, have more or less, taken on the topic of women, gender, sexuality (and sexism). They are Dr. Sarah E. Nicholson (Australian) and Vanessa D. Fisher (Canadian) (see their websites, youtube videos, Fb, etc. for more info. and latest work). I am a follower, somewhat of their work, which all began officially in my meeting them both at the 2010 2nd Integral Theory Conference where they presented a paper "Confronting the Mess of Evolution: Developing a Critical Integral Praxis for Sex, Gender and Sexuality." Vanessa (my daughter) had also presented on a similar topic at the 2008 1st Integral Theory Conference and was awarded for her paper as best in the research category. The two young women and I had a great conversation in 2010 (and with my daughter I have had many since). They both decided to put out an edited volume which took some six years to complete (see "Integral Voices on Sex, Gender, and Sexuality," 2014, SUNY Press), which is the first volume in the Integral Community on this topic, with all its controversies. Btw, I first came across the controversies explicitly when I attended the very first conference on Ken Wilber's Work in 1995 at the California Institute of Integral Studies, where I met and listened to several women academics (e.g., Peggy Wright being most vocal) who disagreed strongly with Wilber's critiques of much of women's writing (especially, feminism) on the evolution of gender, sexuality, and sexism. Some of these heated dialogues can be found in the book later published from that 1995 Conference in "Ken Wilber in Dialogue: Conversations with Leading Transpersonal Thinkers" ed. by D. Rothberg and S. Kelly (Wheaton, IL: Quest Books, 1998). Recently, my chapter two: "(Are) Men Tragically Hopeless(?): A Critical Integralist's Perspective" in eds. Nicholson & Fisher (2014) [2] was a first significant publication on sex and gender for me (other than my dissertation).
I stated there I am not an expert on this topic and don't intend to be. However I have a lot of experience and have done a lot of reading in these areas as part of the oppression dynamic of the "matrix of domination." I am a stated integral radical feminist (by stance). I also am a critical integral theorist and fearologist (by stance). There is no doubt that people have not responded to my chapter in that book (other than Keith Price, see references below) because my position is so extreme and on the margins of even the margins of marginal thought. Nicholson and Fisher's work however, is not so extremely marginal, although it is also not mainstream. I was asked by Nicholson to write a book review of her first book (created out of her dissertation, 2008), "The Evolutionary Journey of Woman: From the Goddess to Integral Feminism" (Integral Publishers, 2013). All of this, as well as mentoring a doctoral student in Philosophy and secondarily in Women, Gender and Sexuality Studies, has left me with no alternative but to put my 'head' back into the topic arena again. In doing so, I pull off my shelves a thick file of notes and articles labeled "Integral Feminism."
All my researching on Sarah's book, and reviews of it (see Amazon.com) also has me thinking a lot about what is a 'good' approach to Integral Feminism. I know there are always going to be many approaches to feminisms, and writing about woman (e.g., third wave womanist theorists), etc. I don't think ever there should be any author/research who claims they have the ultimate "best" view of thinking in this domain, but there is a calling to produce the best we can when it comes to the most embracing of theories of woman, feminism, etc. On that latter point, I would argue, as any integralist would, there is a 'better' integral (holistic) way to embrace all of the views of women, womanists, feminists, etc. Now, that is always going to be with a lot of conflict. Rightfully so, yet the notion of an Integral Feminism(s) discourse (e.g., mapping of the evolutionary territory) is appealing as a project, as well as creating new curriculum and pedagogies for this Integral Feminism--and I support this overall project as Sarah and Vanessa have been pursuing (as "rising stars" and leaders, from Gen-Y), each of them in similar but also very different ways (as you'll find out once you study their work). I also acknowledge, as do Sarah and Vanessa there have been a handful of older women who have also written about an Integral Feminism and are important teachers too (e.g., Willow Pearson, Elizabeth Debold, etc.).
Now, all these integral women (some strong feminists) are also being challenged by a lot of integral men who have their own versions of "woman" and "feminist" etc. This is a large controversy I have stayed out of (for now), except for my chapter 2 takes a prod into the wounds I see in the Integral Movement (and Leadership) around the Sex Wars (and Gender Wars). It is a battle ground, and so it is upon this conflict perspective that I pursue writing a kind of book review (or more like an post-publication Afterword) for Sarah Nicholson's 2013 book. I realized in this project of writing about Nicholson's (2013) work/book, there was so many directions I could take, so much I wanted to say, and that it would all become too cumbersome to try to squeeze it in a single piece (still to be written). So, below I allow myself the space to explore many autobiographical tours and offer readers resources as to my other writing building up on this topic area. For starters, here's some initial exploration and contextualization: Before writing a review of this book (Nicholson, 2013), it’s important to care-fully locate myself as an author and critic. I am always delighted on first response to be asked to submit a critical reflections on women, gender, sexuality (and feminism). Nicholson’s book The Evolutionary Journey of Woman (an ominous title) recently showed up on my desk calling for my response. These topics are not at all my expertise or common topics of my publishing career. Only rarely have I attended a workshop, seminar or taken a course at university on these topics (one graduate course on “Feminist Ecology” in 2000). I more typically write about a critical integral perspective on fearuality (analogous, to sexuality). Thus, it’s not a stretch to admit my (‘normal’) ignore-ance of ‘the Other’ in regard to (sex and gender) types of human beings on this planet. I take no pride (male or otherwise) in this disgraceful biased education I have been both forced in and have chosen (more or less, freely). There’s an enormous humility—in the healthiest sense (not fear-based in guilt and shame complexes)—required (methodologically) to talk about women, gender and sexuality concepts and issues—that is, if one is not identified as an embodied and specific woman (for starters). I pick-up this same (albeit, somewhat more implicit) critical guiding ethical and methodological cautionary that Nicholson (2013) brings to her work. Yes, Nicholson or myself are fine with men (or other non-identified women) researching, theorizing and philosophizing about women, gender, sexuality (and feminism)—our issue of contention is rather qualitative in emphasis: “how they do it.” I’ll discuss this below, regarding Nicholson’s (2013) text.
At the same time as missing out a good woman/feminist formal education designed and taught by women/feminists-scholars and non-scholars, I have been in committed intimate relationships with three women (35 yrs accumulated), all who identify strongly as women and feminists, who taught me a great deal of hard, sometimes brutal, useful lessons in terms of living with a feminist and woman. I also committed eight years of my early-30s developing manhood in an intense consciousness community of learning under the leadership of a powerfully charismatic and very integrated older woman/feminist leader. I well learned the terror of maleness that dwelt below consciousness when being in the presence of a mature (feminist) ‘goddess.’ Other years of intense practical experiences working through and healing sexism have been critical to my own "awakening" of sexism and all its other forms [3]. They all at one time or another put before me women’s (and feminist’s) writings, art and consciousness—and, as they would say, “As a heterosexual white man, you ought to read this, and this... and see this art show, and participate in this woman’s ritual.” Equally important, I fathered two daughters (now 32 and 34 years old).
Through all those years I have grown to highly respect (not without resistance), there is something essentially real and profound about being a female and in particular ‘women’s images and women’s knowledge—women made.’ There is something we ‘Men’ and Masculinist (Patriarchal) Western society have to listen to deeply when women/feminists critique us and our hegemonic organizational way of ‘composing’ a world. Contentious indeed, I still see there are good arguments for a strategically distinct two-spheres hypothesis : a Woman’s Worldview vs. a Man’s Worldview, analogous to in critique (and contestation) to an Indigenous Worldview vs. a Western Worldview. To write anything today about women, I draw heavily on this embodied experience I have been fortunate to encounter. Eventually, in my late 40s, after many years involvement in men’s healing and empowerment (masculinist revolution) work, and as a therapist for teen boys and men, I converted, under no pressure from anyone but myself, through a trans-gendering movement to become a 60:40 woman-man. The recent invitations to submit pieces on integral theory and feminism (also related to masculinism) have come from the likes of my life-partner and academic Barbara Bickel in various ways too many to mention, and from my daughter Vanessa D. Fisher (with whom I have hundreds of hours of intense dialogue on these topics) and her academic colleague Sarah Nicholson.
The first formal (performative) piece I published on my critique of the current “Integral” Men (i.e., primarily leaders, like Ken Wilber) in the Integral Movement, from my preferred radical integral feminist lens is one that offers many suggestions to those non-identified as ‘woman’ to consider and be humble toward, when they attempt to construct knowledge about woman (women) and argue with (usually against) woman-identified feminists.
Okay, then I look at my CV and blogs and realize I have written a good deal (nothing systematic) about the topic area and here is as good a place as any to put it out as a Biography of my writing for others: CSIIE Blog (see): 1. (Are) Women Tragically Fear-Full(?) - Nov. 10/15 2. Critical Response to Keith Price's Critique on Men-ness [my chpt. 2]- Nov. 10/15 3. Gender: The Integral Sting (Wounds) Persist - Jun. 14/15 4. Integral Voices: Book Review & My Comments - Mar. 18/15 5. Females and Fear: Contributions & Challenges - Oct. 15/14 6. Dialogue: R. M. Fisher & V. D. Fisher on Men & Integral - Aug. 1/14 7. Fear, Archetypes of the Masculine: Co-inquiry - Apr. 16/12 8. New DIFS Research Study: Fearless Images - Dec. 1;9/11 [note on the CSIIE blog, anyone can read these, sign-in as Guest if that is useful; I also apologize as some of these blogs as I checked them today are missing bits at times and photo images at times, who knows why but there is still lots of good stuff there to read] Fearlessness Movement Ning (http://fearlessnessmovement.com/ning 1. McConnell, B. (with my comments) "Fear & the Hero's Journey (From an Integral Perspective)" Fearlessness Teachings blog [hacked and erased several years ago; note, I only have hard copies and have not yet re-published them] in 2012 I wrote a trilogy of long blogs: Sexuality, Fearuality, Spirituality: A Fearless Standpoint (1) Sexuality, Fearuality, Spirituality: The Power of Religion (2) Sexuality, Fearuality, Spirituality: Lens of Matrixiality (3)
TO WRAP-UP, there is way too much for me to contextualize, and that's because I have so many meta-perspectives (theories) I have created that I would bring to the table of the development of any progressive Integral Feminism (i.e., from a conflict perspective [4])... but to lay all that out is too big of task for this blogpost. These decades of thinking about oppression and liberation, have led me to many directions that would be very critical of Sarah's approach and/or Vanessa's in this domain of Sex and Gender Wars. The point is, I'd rather spend the time I do put in here, to support there work and help explain some particular aspects that are so crucial in what they are leading--and to do that in a positive rather than critical modality. Sarah's work is what I am now focusing the rest of my time on (in another article on the Fearlessness Movement ning, to come soon). I do this because she has respectfully asked me to contribute a book review on her work, which I am glad to do. Of course, I will be critical as well.
END NOTES 1. Bonilla-Silva, E. (2006). Towards a new radical agenda: A critique of mainstream sociological radicalism. [Book review of "Enriching the Sociological Imagination" ed. R. F. Levine, 2005]. Contemporary Sociology, 35(2), 111-14.
2. Fisher, R. M. (2014). (Are) men tragically hopeless(?): A critical integralist's perspective. In S. E. Nicholson and V. D. Fisher (Eds.), Integral voices on sex, gender, and sexuality: Critical inquiries (pp. 39-62). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
3. In particular, following peer-to-peer co-counseling liberation models, I worked in several therapeutic conscious communities, as participant and facilitation leader, re: men's work, sexism work, and gender issues.
4. A marvelous piece of writing (some of the best in the Integral World, in my opinion) is the chapter "Introduction: Developing a Critical Integral Praxis for Sex, Gender, and Sexuality" (pp. 1-12) by V. D. Fisher and S. E. Nicholson, In Nicholson & Fisher (2014). They make a good distinction between a conflict perspective and a functionalist (cooperation and consensus) perspective--and, all writing on integral theory and/or sex, gender, sexuality is going to be highly shaped by the stance the author/writer/theorist takes in this regard.