Reframing “Masculine” and “Feminine” in Practice

She asked, “How does healing your own inner masculine attract healthy men into your life?”

This inquiry appeared in my feed recently:

“Dear healers, coaches and personal development folks,

Can someone explain to me EXACTLY how healing your own inner masculine attracts healthy men into your life?

No fluff.

No bs.

No woo.

Just an explanation in real laymen terms.

I want to call bs but maybe just maybe I’m missing something here. It’s been known to happen. 😅

Thanks!✌️

P.S. Hopefully I haven’t pissed off all of you and someone can give me a clear answer.”

I’ve written before about why I no longer use “masculine” and “feminine” in my teaching and coaching. But I am fluent in that languaging if that’s what someone is using. This person legitimately had a question I felt deserved a thoughtful answer, not a lecture on the failings of the masculine/feminine paradigm. I agree with the premise of her question; emotionally well rounded people are better equipped to create healthy, high-functioning relationships.

Her prompt had drawn quite a few circular-logic responses, followed by the inevitable pointless bickering in the threads.

Here’s how I responded:

If someone is timid they will both admire and resent assertiveness in others.

If they struggle with structure and consistency they will both rely on and bristle at structure and consistency imposed from others.

If they only know softness and are disconnected from their strength they will be initially attracted to, and end up resenting and hating, others’ strength.

If they’re incapable of providing for themselves they will love being provided for and eventually come to hate the cage they’ve created for themselves.

“Polarity” is a synonym for having the capacity to meet another person’s needs. But over-reliance on a partner’s positive qualities as a human being to stay weak in developing those qualities within oneself eventually leads to problems. Problems the other person can’t be the solution to.

(Think about how an emotionally developed woman will lose interest in a strong masculine man who constantly tries to outsource his emotional wellbeing to her and refuses to cultivate his own emotional intelligence.)

In short, “masculine” and “feminine” are buckets into which people categorize a variety of healthy human traits. Everyone needs traits from both buckets in order to be a happy, high functioning, well rounded human being who can co-create a healthy relationship.

Of course you want a partner with the traits required to meet your needs. But in a long-term relationship, if you use that to stay undeveloped in those areas yourself the relationship will suffer. I see this all the time. Their car won’t start, so they marry someone with jumper cables, then wonder why it‘s not working.

People who have a rocky internal relationship to a healthy positive quality they lack, will develop a love/hate relationship with others who are strong in that quality.

The same goes for the “healthy man” you’re aspiring to attract—by definition he has a well rounded mix of healthy human traits from both buckets. And he’ll feel met and matched by a partner who’s like that too.

Even though the question is framed as a masculine/feminine question, my answer shows the potency of not using those words. I think the question is a good example of why you have to get down to the bedrock of what those words mean in order to get anywhere. You have to step out of masculine/feminine languaging to talk about it meaningfully.

Compare this to telling a woman who’s hungry for connection, “You need to heal your inner masculine if you want to find a partner.” How would she even go about deciphering what that means, let alone figuring out how to do it?

In fact I believe labeling it—whatever it is—“her inner masculine” made it harder, not easier, for her to get into right relationship with it.

Something to try: the next time you’re tempted to use “masculine” or “feminine” in a sentence, take a moment to identify the specific behaviors, thought patterns, or ways of being that you’re using those words to refer to, and instead, talk about those qualities or behaviors directly. I’d love to hear whether it improves or hinders the discussion. Let me know in the comments.

What to read next: