# Focus? Listen? Do both and be a Hermaphrodite.

I had a conflict with a friend recently that led me to start writing this up. He didn’t want to do the usual 'masculine' thing of being focused and directing people, so he tried to be more 'feminine' by listening. But it ended up all dark and dangerous because of how these two approaches were mixed up. If we turned into in an abstract word problem it would look like this:

Person B asks Person A what they want with Person C. Person B then goes to Person C and tells them what Person A wants.

Sounds simple enough and we can see there is a good intention there to get Person A’s needs met. However, Person A is making that request without understanding context for Person C. The reciprocity is all centered on Person B. The triangle isn’t closed, as we would say in Network Weaving. And we have a queen-in-between brokering.

It might seem like a step in the right direction from the old form where Person B may or may not take any input from A or C, but definitely tells both A and C what they need to do and how they feel about that is on A and C to resolve internally. Think of it like your Dad telling you and your sibling to stop fighting and go to your respective rooms/corners.

But a more positive 'masculine' that doesn’t close the triangle is more about being a membrane filter between A and C in their conflict. B would say to each, “I want peace and quiet, what do you need to align with that?” Then to the other they would say, “for me to have quiet, A needs C to….. Can you do that for me?” And inversely, “for me to have quiet, C needs A to…, can you do that for me?” It may seem subtly different from the first story problem, so let me point directly at the differences. In this case the favor is being directly asked in support of what B wants, with informed request about what A and C need. Reciprocity is clear and above-board. In the first case, B used the strength of relationship with C without owning that the request of C was to serve B, and instead implied that it was about serving A. But A wasn’t making that request with awareness about C, so mutuality and negotiation of both was forfeit.

In both the original case and this positive 'masculine' case, the triangle is not closed. All interactions are between A and B or B and C. In the positive masculine case, there is reciprocity and mutuality in pairs. B acts as an intermediary and asserts what B wants of both A and C.

In a more positive 'feminine' frame, we might have a more emergent goal and a circle of relationship holds the desire. It is less about B wanting something, and more about A, B, and C contributing what they notice and each sensing for what they can contribute to the circle being more healthy/whole. Maybe B would say, “I notice there is a situation that might benefit from our attention. Do you notice it too?” B may or may not act as buffer initially but whether A and B talk directly, the whole conversation is held as a discussion about what we will do and us being together. Each is asking themselves what they notice, checking their own limits and boundaries, and sensing what they can give to help the whole. The reciprocity is between each and the whole more than it is between two of the people.

When we shift to a hermaphrodite approach, we blend the best of the positive masculine (focused and goal driven) with the best of the positive feminine (sensing, caring for the whole). We can have each taking care of themselves with clarity about what they want and what they can give, reciprocity and mutuality between each party and hold for the health of the whole. Want. Sense. Request. Offer. Context.

(I have diagrams for these)

# Questions:
How much of "reciprocity, mutuality, triangles" etc need to be explained?