Masculine & Feminine? Or… Parent & Child?

There’s a particular narrative about the masculine and feminine that’s been circulating heavily in the world of so-called conscious relationships. You’ve probably seen it. The masculine is stillness, the feminine is movement. The masculine is consciousness, the feminine is emotion. The masculine leads, the feminine surrenders. He provides, she receives. He contains, she flows. Sound familiar?

Now ask yourself… is this actually about “masculine and feminine” gender attributes/archetypes?

Or is it a veiled parent-child dynamic?

Historically, women - and by extension the cultural construct called “femininity” and everything relating to it - have been devalued by being linked to childlike qualities. And when we look closely at these polarity teachings, we might notice that the idealized feminine being mirrors a child: emotional, chaotic, needing containment. And the masculine one? Calm, holding, responsible, guiding - like a parent.

This isn’t just a metaphor. It’s a blueprint for domination. And it’s being sold to us as “mature conscious relating.”

The trad wife fantasy? A woman being fully provided for, no responsibilities, led in all things - this isn’t a vision of empowered mature feminine sovereignty. It’s the dream of being a well-cared-for child. And hey, I get it - given how much attachment trauma we are dealing with, compounded by the trauma of living in an exploitative capitalist society, we all (regardless of gender) are damn tired and just longing to be provided for and taken care of.. 

But even when these teachings say, “It’s not about gender—it’s about energy!” the framework remains intact. A framework rooted in a patriarchal, heteronormative, hierarchical worldview -  not in a vision of two grown-up humans meeting in their full agency, emotional depth, and mutual respect.

And when the “masculine” and “feminine” are internalized as energies within, the same dynamic plays out - just turned inward. You’ll hear things like: “Husband your feminine.” Which often means: use the sword of your inner masculine consciousness to control, contain, or discipline your feminine emotions. On the surface, it may sound like self-mastery (which by the way, is not unproblematic itself - another blog might be coming on the colonial myth of the “self-made man"). But beneath that, it echoes a familiar logic: dominate, contain, control.

The very same philosophy that has long justified the subjugation of women, children, emotions, intuition, and the natural world - now dressed up in spiritual language, and directed toward our own inner life and relationships.

To be clear: Yes, it’s true that our romantic relationships often bring up unhealed childhood wounds. That we may, consciously or not, replay and seek to repair early attachment dynamics. And that can be a beautiful thing - when both partners are aware that these dynamics are at play, and there is consent to engage with them in a healing way. 

Same goes for our own inner reparenting work, which may I add, also needs to break with the paradigm of parenting rooted in domination, violence and control. 

But even if we take the most evolved version of parenting we should not be projecting the parent-child dynamic onto the concepts of masculinity and femininity - and then expecting people to embody these archetypes based on their gender. 

Doing that, at best, limits our capacity to meet each other authentically, fluidly, and in the wholeness of our humanity. At its worst, it's straight up dangerous given our political climate - it creates the perfect conditions for gender based oppression, abuse and domination. 

So here’s the invitation:

• What happens if we take away the heteronormative masculine + feminine a.k.a. parent-child projection from how we see relationship dynamics?

• How does that then affect how you think about leadership and surrender vs. mutual responsibility?

• What kind of relationship becomes possible when we stop trying to fit ourselves into limiting gender roles and instead, learn to co-create safety, presence, and freedom together?

Final note.

If you know me a little, you know my general beef with the concepts of masculine/feminine understood as clear cut universal truths. I don't actually reject these terms as long as they are used with nuance - with an understanding that they are a very complex amalgam of cultural, socio-political, physio- and psychological elements. And that ultimately, their meaning should be dependent on each individual - and not a fixed set of qualities.