This Sunday, millions of people in the United States and around the world will be watching Super Bowl 53, the football game between the New England Patriots and Los Angeles Rams. If you are like me, you will really be watching for the ads!
One ad that we thought might air, but looks like it won’t, is the Gillette ad that was released online on January 14. In this ad, Gillette, the company that makes razors and shaving cream for men, asked the question of whether “boys being boys” and men not holding each other accountable for actions that might be bullying to other men and boys and chauvinistic attitudes, actions and abuse of women and girls was really “the best a man could get”. “The best a man can get” has been Gillette’s tagline for decades.
The ad campaign has stirred up conversation and controversy. Some have said that the ad is condescending to men, ascribing collective behavior to an entire gender and claiming that masculinity is toxic. Others praise the ad as asking for men to hold each other accountable in the era of the Me Too movement. Apparently, Gillette is siting the cost of airing the 2 minute ad during the Super Bowl as the reason for not showing it vs. the controversy.
On the January 18th episode of the CBS This Morning show, there was a segment discussing the ad controversy. The hosts interviewed Ted Bunch, who is a co-founder of A Call to Men, and a psychologist named Lisa Damour. The mission statement of A Call to Men is “A CALL TO MEN works to promote a healthy and respectful manhood and shift attitudes and behaviors that devalue women, girls and other marginalized groups.”
Bunch stated that he didn’t think the ad was an indictment of masculinity but instead was an invitation for men to be better. Damour gives the psychological point of view that our society doesn’t allow men to show any emotion but anger (and anger is actually a secondary emotion with hurt or sadness as the primary emotion.) Bunch states that even though most violence against women and girls is at the hand of men and boys, the majority of men aren’t violent but the majority are silent about it.
As for my two cents worth, the Spiritual Hierarchy knows that many lightworkers are focused with bringing Divine Feminine Energy to the planet. It is appropriate for women to stand in their power just as it is appropriate for men to stand in their power. But standing in Divine Power is different from having power over another, regardless of gender. Our teacher, Kris Duffy always talked about “power over another” as having the qualities of being overt like using force or covert like using manipulation. People in female or male bodies can use either overt or covert power over another.
The goal is not to have a matriarchy system replace the patriarchy one. The goal is to come back into balance between masculine and feminine energies. The goal is for the outer culture to reflect the inner balance between our masculine and feminine qualities and energies. The goal is eventually to be in Oneness within ourselves regardless of which gender we were born with or choose in this particular incarnation. We have incarnated as male, as female, as gender fluid in this lifetime and in other lifetimes for the experience and the lessons we would learn. The ultimate lesson is to know ourselves as One / as Source without judgment regarding if we are women or men in this particular lifetime.
That is why Standing in the Light® Level 2 Part I class is titled “Experiencing Oneness through Balancing the Male and Female.” The Christ has not entitled a class called “How to beat them at their own game.” That particular sentiment is not Divine Wisdom, that is not Divine Power and that is not Divine Love.
The focus should be experiencing Divine Wisdom, Divine Power and Divine Love through anchoring Divine Masculine Energy within ourselves so that we may be in Divine Balance with all. That is the best a (hu)man can get.
Thank you to Pixabay.com for the powerful image helping to represent Divine Masculine Energy.
Many Americans (my husband and me included) have done a little binge watching over the holidays. HBO has been replaying the seven seasons of Game of Thrones. I am a reluctant fan as I have to cover my eyes during some of the violent scenes, but the intrigue of the storylines make me wonder about human nature, power over others, compassion and other emotions.
As I philosophize about the show, I like to also consider the actors and some of the other movies and TV shows they are in. I wonder if we as humans, could take off our prejudices and old habits of behavior as easily as the actors change their characters depending on what role they are reading at any given moment.
Emelia Clarke who plays Daenerys Targaryen, the Mother of Dragons on Game of Thrones, also acts in a movie that is a favorite of mine, Me Before You. In Me Before You, Clarke’s character, Louisa Clark, is pretty much the polar opposite of Daenerys Targaryen. Louisa Clark is a caregiver for a rich quadriplegic man named Will Traynor, played by Sam Claflin who many binge watchers might know from the Hunger Game Movies.
Louisa Clark is quirky, bubbly, outgoing, outrageously dressed and in her own words, “has never hated anyone.” Unlike Louisa, Daenerys Targaryen has been raised to reacquire the throne over the seven kingdoms with only slightly less ruthlessness than one of the other Game of Throne ruling families, the Lannister’s.
The head of the Lannister family is a callous father named Tywin Lannister, played by Charles Dance. Dance happens to play Stephen Traynor, the father of the quadriplegic man in Me Before You.
In the Game of Thrones world, if Daenerys and Tywin met, it would be anyone’s guess as to whose first-in-command would try to kill the other first and with what weapon – dragon, poisoned wine, or crossbow. Holding the throne is all that matters.
In the Me Before You world, Louisa Clark and Stephen Traynor are trying to find ways to help Will lead a more fulfilling, less painful life. Compassion and love is all they try to exhibit.
I have wondered if Dance and Clarke discussed this at their first table read of the Me Before You script. I often wondered if they joked about reading the Me Before You script with their Game of Throne personas or vice versa? Would you even be able to read Daenerys Targaryen as a doe eyed optimist who holds no grudge and not only looks for the good in everyone, but finds it? Maybe, maybe not. But reading Tywin Lannister as an unconditional loving father like Stephen Traynor is not believable.
I believe the validity of wondering about these cross versions of characters and personas is in the discussion of what we need to let go of in our past actions and beliefs, what we need to forgive and forget of ourselves and others who may have been party to storylines that we no longer need to repeat.
We would be better served if we could resolve to clear our energetic slates or our energetic character roles of any false beliefs, discordant emotions, old habits and attachments to old situations and prior lifetimes. We would be better served, if we could start everyday as a new role, a new character that we allow our “better angels” to help us form. If we could look at our experiences and respond with “well, I don’t need to act in that drama again because I have already played that part and I have already experienced what that felt like. Now, I can act a different way, believe something new and see what that experience feels like. I can choose joy, love and compassion over hate, revenge and greed. I can choose self-love and confidence over self-pity and loathing.”
For me that is the fun of comparing different “worlds” and our parts in those worlds. Choose to experience the actions that make you happy and whole. Choose to let go of any drama that doesn’t enhance your vision of yourself and others.
Choose a new experience, the one of yourself as completely in your power and love as Source.
(Much love and gratitude to the contributors of the amazing images from Pixabay.com)
Over the Thanksgiving break, I listened to a book on CD on my drive to Kansas. I was enjoying the suspense and action of the novel called The Cuban Affair by Nelson DeMille. The protagonist had been in the army, but was now a private charter boat captain in Key West. As the action heats up, he reminds himself that most people believe that life is made up of our choices. But, as a military man, he says he knows that life is a made up by our decisions.
I thought about the distinction between the words “choices” and “decisions.” I like the energy behind the word decisions. It feels much more empowering and more conscious than the word choices. Decision lends itself to the energy that there will be ramifications or even repercussions to the action taken. Or ramifications and repercussions to not taking the action. Recognizing the consequences will make us more conscious about the action we will take.
Even looking at the dictionary definitions, choice seems to be a selection between two or more alternatives. Whereas, decision is a conclusion or resolution reached after consideration. Again, decisions feels much more active.
In our quest to be more alive and more conscious, we might want to focus on integrating the energy of decisions. We can decide what we are moving toward. We can decide what we want to leave behind. We can decide to leave behind the victimization energy that might have held us to old beliefs and old habits. Focus on making decisions that will move us forward into our evolution and to help us remember the Light which we are.
Will the decisions we make today help our evolution? I hope so!
Thanks to Pixabay.com for the picture!
Today’s blog entry is an excerpt from the upcoming Teaching and Potluck on November 10 called Divine Resilience: The Willingness to Remember Who I Truly Am
Earlier in the year, we worked with the energy of Transfiguration. We were working with the energy to transform our world by increasing our ability to hold the energy of transfiguration. One of the key components to being willing to transfigure into the true essence of who we are is to hold and integrate the energy of resilience. Today, we will focus on this energy and the subcomponents of resilience. As we often start our teachings, here is the definition of resilience from dictionary.com.
- the power or ability to return to the original form, position, etc., after being bent, compressed, or stretched; elasticity.
- ability to recover readily from illness, depression, adversity, or the like; buoyancy.
I love this definition. It seems perfect for working with the idea to climb out of the experiment zone.
When Ginger and I first started working on this topic, Ginger reminded me of the image Kris Duffy use to describe. The image of taking a rubber band and stretching it out to show our perceptions in the illusion and then letting it go (gently!) to show how quickly we snap back into our original selves when we truly and completely let go. It was a great reminder of how fluid we are inherently when we allow it and that it actually takes more energy to hold ourselves stretched out of shape then it does to allow ourselves back to our original one. It was also a great reminder that we have inherent memory of our natural state, that it isn’t lost and has to be regained. It is still held in our energetic field and we actually desire to return to that state, to what we remember on a deeper level, despite what it feels like on the surface.
Thus, the idea that we are “returning to the original form” is just our perception; it is just the illusion. We have always been our original form of Source, our original Divinity. It is only our experiences within the illusion of the experiment which makes us believe that we have been something “other than divine, other than source”. It is through allowing our belief system and our energy to focus on being resilient that we will more easily remember who we truly are.
Having a sense of resilience is all about looking at everything as an optimist. I am not suggesting that we have a naïve view of where we have been and what we have done. I am suggesting that we don’t judge it and instead allow for the possibility that it doesn’t need to inform or define how we move into the future. Looking at the world as a pessimist may make you “right” but does it help you evolve? Does it help you to heal? Is being “right” about “everything” the goal? Is that what you want to be known for?
Do I want to be known as predicting the stock market crash, the rise of neo XXXX (fill in the blank) group, global warming and divisions between humans? Or do I want to be part of the solution with the attitude of helping to find common ground with the neo XXXX (fill in the blank) group, finding solutions to global warming and division between humans?
If you are guided to attend a rally to seek change in the outer world, do it from the perspective of helping to increase solidarity v. increasing divisions. Do it in order to help increase standing in our divine power v. polarizing power between the left and the right, between the haves and the have nots. Divine Resilience will help you to be part of the ONE SOLUTION…and the One Solution has many parts and many layers. Just like the United States Motto: E Pluribus Unum. Out of the many, One. Out of many answers and resolutions comes the ultimate solution. Funny story – I just mistyped this last word. I typed SOULUTION instead of Solution. Maybe that wasn’t a mistake at all. Maybe we can look at answers to our issues as SOUL-UTIONS instead of blaming others or just looking for temporary solutions. Look for the SOULUTIONS/ Look for the ONE SOLUTION, the permanent wisdom of knowing ourselves as Source.
This is the overarching goal. To be part of the solution to help everyone to remember who we truly are. Help everyone to remember We Are Source.
While working to master my own fears of scuba diving, I was guided to take the PADI Rescue Diver course. In this course we learn techniques and procedures to help if another diver is panicked, has run out of air or has had a physical injury including loss of consciousness. Later in November, I will be taking a re-certification class for the Wilderness First Responder training I have also had.
It dawned on me that the first step in both of these emergency response procedures is to determine if the situation is safe to help the other person. If you don’t have the strength, the qualifications or the training to help, it is best if you don’t offer aid. The logic is that you don’t want to turn a situation with one victim into a situation with two victims. I suppose this goes along with the airline procedures of always put your own mask on first before helping someone else with their mask.
I will tell you that I had to do my own meditating and clearing on this idea of not helping. I wonder why people struggle with this idea of restraint. Is it that none of us wants to feel powerless to help? Is it that we have watched too many action hero movies that we think we can pull off something that we are either not qualified for nor for which the outcome is going to be what the outcome is with or without our assistance – the impotent inevitability? Have we allowed ourselves to become too attached to a certain or even perfect outcome of all experiences? Could there also be a co-dependent relationship with the victim? I suppose it may be a combination of all of these and other factors too.
However, what if we aren’t talking about a life and death situations, but instead are talking about whether it is “safe” to help others in more everyday situations. We could substitute the words “highest plan” for “safe” to see if everyday situations should be acted upon. Are we allowing co-dependency to cloud our judgment whether to loan money to a family member? Are we checking with guidance regarding whether to stop alongside the road to give assistance? Are we willing to stand in our power to say “no” to a loved one when it isn’t in the highest plan to help because helping would be rescuing them instead of helping them to evolve?
Helping others when it is the highest plan is noble even part of our divine service. Helping others when it feeds their victimization is not in the highest plan. We need to follow our inner wisdom, our guidance to determine when to help and when we should refrain from helping. This is a balancing act that we can all master by following our guidance for what is in the highest good of all.
Thanks to Pixabay.com for the beautiful image.