Too intense for a woman? · 21 October 2008
A few years ago, an authorized teacher told me that “as a woman” I don’t “need” to practice the full vinyasa for upavista konasana in the first series.
Yes, the maneuver is mysterious and possibly dangerous. Just like my femininity.
A few people asked a while ago about the relationship of women and third series. Should women take on such an intense program? I wrote a response and didn’t post it. (I barely journaled before I began this blog, but now journal offline all the time. Strange.) I sensed the moment had passed and that the discussion would only amplify women’s self-doubt. But… it seems to be coming up. Here are some of those earlier thoughts. ……………………………………………………............................
This question of women practicing third illustrates what I’ve been trying to say about gender archetypes.
They’re great interpretive tools. Actual people are not archetypes—people contain multitudes. If we allow each other.
Many teachers have an opinion about women practicing third. It’s can be a place to locate their (more or less unexamined) beliefs about gender. Not to pull a CP snarky yoga smackdown, but these opinions may say more about the specific teacher than they do about the practice.
I’ve learned the series from two senior men—one who sees it as grounding for women in an intense, really good way. And one who simply sees it as the best program ever, for any body lucky enough to find it. But others think that the transformations third brings are unnatural or unhealthy for women—it maybe be difficult to get them to say this explicitly, but sometimes you can sound it out. Which, “as a woman,” I try to do. A few duck this topic, reinforcing patriarchial taboos about discussing women’s bodies—taboos in both folk and scientific cultures which have kept women from being the real experts on our own bodies.
Bring out the smelling salts—the girls are doing ekapadabakasana.
Well, whatever. The advanced stuff is delightful for some people; and I submit that a penis is not necessary for going upside down. So enough mystery already around intense physical practice. There is no feminine mystique that is endangered by handstands.
Still, ok, the program has practical drawbacks, distributed unevenly across body types and personalities.
First, it’s sort of a drug—the endorphin release is large. But I’m not convinced that being an endorphin junkie is all bad. As long as you can work the habit without becoming a compulsive, self-centered freak. (Koan-ism?) In any case, this “risk” has nothing to do with gender, but a lot to do with personality.
Second, it can be ragged-breathingly aggressive if you’re bad at it. Otherwise, it’s just intense and focused. Some would see that as “masculine.” Intensity and focus are archetypically masculine traits, but there’s much of them in real women.
I’m not trying to kill the archetypes. Old dualities (passive/active, creative/receptive, masculine/feminine, whatever) aren’t all bad. And since they’re out there, we may as well use them for meaning-making. Instead of letting them lead us around or using them artlessly to divide up the world.
Third, while there’s no unfeminine essence in this string of postures, women do face two practical problems—shoulder/wrist trouble and the string bean factor. Men face the same challenges in their own way.
Shoulder or wrist trouble might be more likely among tall people, those whose center of gravity is in the belly or pelvis, or anyone with delicate joints. I fall in to one of these categories—low center of gravity—but I’m small and have the very sturdy wrists and shoulders of my mongrel Irish father. So, despite lacking a penis, my anatomy is still well suited to this program in a key way. (The one person I know who had serious shoulder trouble in third was a tall man.)
As for the tendencies toward lizardlyness, women who get really skinny doing this programme—because it is easier when the hips are light—might stop menstruating. (Ignoring old-school whispers about woman's "essence,") there’s dispute over whether that’s a problem for long term health. I figure, for active women, it’s a genuine problem due to loss of bone mass and a damaged metabolism. Nevermind the malarkey about cycles bringing women into transcendent gaian harmony with the universe according with their receptive reproductive fate—just for practical reasons, not cycling is a dramatic edge to be playing.
The masculine/feminine archtypes are spare abstractions, not something strive to embody. One way to use them is to interpret the notion of balanced practice. Let there be creativity and receptivity, will and surrender, exhales and inhales, process orientation and goal orientation, all of it. I figure they can balance any practice. If in our community third has been seen as hypermasculine, then maybe we only understand the half of it.
Posted by (0v0)
Categories: astanga yoga
Previous entry: "Spirituality" / Next entry: SLV: Just Links
Comment
Commenting is closed for this article.
Damn! This post couldn’t have come at a better time. lol. Thank you.
Several months ago I was put into a scare. After seeing a TCM doctor I was told that my menstrual cycle was too short, and if I ever wanted children, in the future, it would be difficult. So…I pulled the reins on my practice, lessening the intensity.
In the end, I didn’t feel better…at all, and came to the conclusion I need to stop listening to other people’s opinions and listen to my own inner voice. My own body.
There should be no qualms about a woman practicing 3rd. Especially if she has progressed through 1st and 2nd naturally…then, naturally 3rd series would be the next step.
My body craves intensity and challenge. It always has for as long as I can remember. Not sure what archetype you would call that??...nonetheless, it feeds a part of me, releases something…gosh darn it…it makes me feel good. This is coming from a girl, who outwardly, comes off as quiet and introspective.
If anything…I like bringing a feminine aspect to such a challenging practice…often times called “masculine”...making grueling arm balancing look as if they took no effort…jumping back without making a sound. It’s fun to play with the energy.
Yes…my shoulders are a bit broad for my frame. Not sure if that’s a draw back or not. Anyway…most importantly I enjoy the process. I enjoy the challenge. I enjoy the internal quest and journey the practice takes me on. So..I’m gonna continue on.
It isn’t for everybody. Only for those who desire to walk through it.
Thank you a lovely commentary…
Posted by: Laruga · Oct 21, 11:09 PM · #
Seventeen arm balances in a row. How many breaths is a whole nuther story or netherworld.
After the arm balances, outside of a few sticking points (or stickler points) its almost downhill – hamstrings and backbends which tend to be be fertile and facile ground for the XX’ers.
It was advised that third not be taken on a full stomach or seriously or the vomiting of shadow elements may ensue or so I heard.
Posted by: holdenjoy · Oct 21, 11:43 PM · #
Here we go again with the yoga pontiffs and their ironic wall-building. Never mind third series, a friend of mine was told recently at one of these ‘teacher trainings’ that women over thirty should not practice ashtanga vinyasa at all, as it ‘dries them out’!
You must stay fecund for the tribe, ladies.
A few points:
Primary series is just so unmanly. For a male mongrel saxon-paddy like me who has been bred to dig peat and carry cement up ladders, ardha baddha padma stuff, garbha p and on and on can really be brutal. Arm balances ( in coarse form), on the other hand are pretty much a first or second time deal.
Then again, this is also because ( for me) my wrists/shoulders have had to do a bit more than lift lattes and tap a keyboard. Am I not a woman? It’s a class thing, too.
Personally, i think that women should get into the strength work as quickly as possible and give over with the leg wraps – how bendy do you need to be?
Do as you’re told.
Posted by: meniscusmerangue · Oct 22, 01:03 AM · #
I’m always impressed by your ability to analyze the purely physical aspects of the practice and then place them in a non-physical context. You really have a gift for explaining the mechanics of asana in an understandable form.
Stop resisting and start writing for YJ already!
:)
Posted by: cody · Oct 22, 05:54 AM · #
It’s pretty amusing to read this from a state where there is sparse Ashtanga, incredibly rare forays into Second, and where “Third Series” has all the realism of “Santa Claus.” I’m down with what’s written, but when I situate this writing against Indiana, it’s just hilarious.
Posted by: patrick · Oct 22, 06:13 AM · #
‘As long as you can work the habit without becoming a compulsive, self-centered freak…nothing to do with gender, but a lot to do with personality.’ YES. I’ve observed this in someone practicing third series and it’s quite painful to watch. Perhaps it’s part of the process? I don’t know. I’ve also practiced with a woman who went well into fourth and she was one of the most serene people I’ve ever met. And she didn’t look all ‘manly’. I can’t be positive, but Owl, I think you’re like me. I like the duality, the differences of the sexes but I don’t think that should stop us from doing whatever we want or CAN. Will I ever practice third? Doubtful. But if I thought I COULD, I would at least try. Haven’t we evolved beyond that kind of categorical ‘this group shouldn’t do this’ nonsense?
Posted by: LI Ashtangini · Oct 22, 06:17 AM · #
Sometimes it’s kind of boring being a white male because I don’t get to see some of the more interesting ways that race and/or sex taboos pop up. Nobody throws weird stuff like that at me.
All transformation is “dangerous” with respect to preceding states, isn’t it? I’m curious to read more about all this.
Posted by: Carl · Oct 22, 07:53 AM · #
I never had the slightest bit of trouble with ekapadabakasana, and I’m a girl!! I dunno… in my new, small shala that only people practicing 3rd are women and we are studying with a gay man. I guess typical astanga related gender issues don’t come up much. Christopher tends to think that everything is possible, and somehow transmits that belief to student/s.
To me, 3rd just seems like more of the same stuff, only amped up.
Posted by: boodiba · Oct 23, 02:16 AM · #
I always figured most of the people working in third were women. Most of the gateway stuff in the earlier series as much about flexibility as anything else. I mean, one doesn’t have to be super-muscley or freakishly strong to do anything in first or second, except karanda—although I’ve got stronger abs than the guys I know—but one does have to be flexible. Even, very, freakishly flexible. I figured that most people who reached 3rd series were women.
And, maybe I’m wrong here, but the strength in 3rd series isn’t life-a-car-over-your-head, bench-press-your-girlfriend kind of strength, either. It seems to be more gymnast kind of strength. Control, balance, grace. A little arm-heavy, maybe! ;)
It looks feminine, to me. Especially when Kino does it.
Posted by: joy · Oct 23, 03:31 AM · #
very well put
Posted by: meniscusmerangue · Oct 23, 05:51 AM · #
I have been stuck at the beginning of the arm balances in 3rd for … jeez, it’s well over a year now, but the block between me and completion seems more about things I have (long legs, and most of my weight below the waist) than things I lack (I have good arm/shoulder/wrist strength & flexibility).
These things I have that are in my way are female things, but they’re female things that most female gymnasts tend to lack.
There’s a strange Japanese game show on cable called Unbeatable Banzuke. One of the games involves walking on one’s hands through a ridiculous obstacle course. The only person I’ve ever seen complete it truly gracefully was a woman. A tiny, boobless, assless, very thin woman. In other words, physically, practically a girl. I’m sure she could do all the arm balances in 3rd with complete ease.
So Joy, I guess I both agree and disagree with you … the strength needed for 3rd is definitely feminine and graceful, but at the same time I wouldn’t feel right calling it ‘womanly’. Eh. Maybe that’s moot. It is if you are a girlishly shaped woman, anyway.
Posted by: katie · Oct 23, 01:41 PM · #
hi (0v0), you always touch on leading edge topics splendidly. by string bean factor i imagine you mean being really thin to make it easier to move the body into all of the asanas of 3rd series. i crave getting to this series. i agree with CP, you should write for YJ.
hugs
Arturo
Posted by: arturo · Oct 23, 02:03 PM · #
Katie, that’s a great point. Female gymnasts don’t seem to mature past pre-teen, and in general they stay very..;. compact, in terms of height and shape. I remember seeing just one Russian, I think she was, with a real updo instead of a ponytail and barrettes, who was probably 5’3” but looked like an amazon next to those little girls. She had a waist and hips. Anyone remember her? Svetlana somebody. She was the only one I ever saw who was built that way. That’s got to mean something about the relationship of hip and long leg to arm balancing, etc.
It was gorgeous when she moved, though. A entirely different animal from the rest.
Posted by: joy · Oct 23, 07:28 PM · #
Boguinskaia. Belarussian.
Posted by: meniscusmerangue · Oct 24, 02:40 AM · #
Interesting that there’s some “what it means to be a woman” (versus “girl”) creeping in here. And that it’s being introduced by women. A more embodied perspective, sure. But does that make the perspective entirely different from Owl’s authorized male teacher who brought up the subject (albeit in a much blunter fashion) in the first place?
Posted by: karen · Oct 24, 04:12 AM · #
I’d been waiting to see if someone would play the gymnastics trump card.
Posted by: (0v0) · Oct 24, 07:01 AM · #
Karen, I think it’s different … Owl’s teacher was suggesting that there are things women should not do or avoid as ‘unhealthy’. I can only speak for myself, but I’m suggesting there are things non-gymnast-shaped women might find to be difficult – I wouldn’t think of avoiding the difficult or considering it unhealthy for me based on my shape or gender. :)
Posted by: katie · Oct 24, 07:46 AM · #
Yeah, that’s what I meant as well. Didn’t mean it as a trump. Trump of what? Katie’s comment made me think of the relationship of heavier hip and longer leg to center of gravity, and relative ease or difficulty in asana.
Posted by: joy · Oct 24, 08:41 AM · #
Sorry, also—
(Didn’t mean it as a reason anyone ought to or ought not to practice 3rd series, just a consideration as to the types of bodies that might have an easier or harder time with it.) And the references to gymnasts having “girlish” bodies has to do with the fact that most of them aren’t menstruating. That as a side-effect of their extreme physical activity, their weight is so low that they stave off puberty, literally. That’s what I meant by girlish figure. Happens to dancers, too, though to a lesser extent. I’m assuming, though, that we’re all well past puberty, aren’t we?
Posted by: joy · Oct 24, 08:53 AM · #
Joy, let me back you up on this: girlish/womanly are used here solely as adjectives referring to the physical absence/presence of secondary sex character (aka, “T&A”).
Posted by: katie · Oct 24, 09:12 AM · #
istics. Characteristics. Whoops.
Posted by: katie · Oct 24, 09:15 AM · #
So does this practice make someone not a real woman? Can it?
Does the gymnastics comparison, because full of amenorrhic women, illuminate the worries here? Or is gymnastics an extreme, inaccurate interpretation of this practice that pushes yoga to the side?
This just got really interesting, considering a certain strain in ashtanga’s history… :)
Posted by: (0v0) · Oct 24, 09:24 AM · #
The gymnast/non-gymnast (which turns into woman/girl) question is part of the healthy-unhealthy equation, though, isn’t it?
I don’t have any strong opinion on this, because I’m not particularly well-informed. It’s easy for me to bristle at men suggesting women can’t or shouldn’t do things, but then I am curious about how we ourselves are now categorizing by woman/girl, non-gymnast/gymnast, menstruating/non-menstruating.
My interest in this question (women and 3S) actually revolves around Matthew Sweeney’s seeming reluctance about it when I did a workshop with him. First off, and well worth noting: he did not come out and say women shouldn’t practice third. He did seem to intimate that it’s not for everyone, and might be less than ideal for some, and that proportionately, that “some” would likely include more women than men. He was extraordinarily measured.
I didn’t take him for sexist, and he seems like a good thinker who relies heavily on his own experience and observations, so I figured there might be something more to his hesitation than simple sexism. I imagined it came from things he’s seen/heard/etc. I may be wrong on this, of course.
But the benefit-of-the-doubt side of me wonders if he wasn’t just concerned about how 3S can seem to… require? select? suggest? bodies with very low fat stores. I suspect he feels that might be even unhealthier for women than it might be for men.
Is that true (that it’s less healthy) (that it’s what MS was thinking)? I have no idea. Maybe he just likes curvy gals, thinks the world should be full of them, and is on a campaign to ensure none of us get too thin. :-)
It’s a very interesting subject, though.
Posted by: karen · Oct 24, 09:27 AM · #
I’d love others’ responses to Karen. But just to add context briefly, MS may be measured about this, and is probably more conscious about (or even beyond, considering his rep as one well-processed dude) his own culturally received gender biases. But I aver some of the things he has heard about 3S/women are in hushed, male-teacher-only conversations about just this topic. Because those conversations do happen, let’s give those teachers some nuanced data to wrestle with.
Times like this I wish I had a stat counter. People keep googling for this conversation, “inside owl women third series,” kind of thing. Welcome, curious internet people. It is a form of yoga to push back the veil into unconscious limitations.
(And I’m not saying that some people don’t use 3S itself unconsciously. Sonya’s right.)
Posted by: (0v0) · Oct 24, 09:43 AM · #
Thanks for this discussion everyone- it’s so interesting to read. I don’t have much to offer, unfortunately. I do know that I’ve been guilty of thinking that certain body types have an advantage, but then- in the past, I’ve worked up to Urdvha Kukkutasana A with only the real issue of stamina being in the way. Not much of 3rd, I know, but still… my point is, I have a very Marilyn Monroe body, and then some!
(Karen- thanks for your notes on Sweeney, it’s intriguing stuff)
Posted by: Liz · Oct 24, 09:48 AM · #
Plenty of women look like gymnasts and are still women in every sense of the word, including bleeding monthly. They just happen to have a weight distribution that favors balancing upside down on their arms, whereas the more typical body type for women does not tend to favor that.
I dunno, am I deluded for thinking that this is not really an issue? It’s never occurred to me that I’m literally not going to be able to do these arm balances eventually, despite having a phat ass, decent boobs and heavy (literally, not shape-wise) legs. I don’t expect my body type to change, but I do expect to slowly develop strength in the right places and be able to do the rest of 3rd, despite my secondary sex characteristics. It is happening, though slowly.
And I don’t expect it to make me feel unhealthy, and I don’t expect to stop getting my period, and I don’t expect to stop eating, either.
Posted by: katie · Oct 24, 09:58 AM · #
I’m trying to remember Matthew’s equation about how many of whom finish which. I THINK that it was, more women than men finish Primary, and more men than women finish Intermediate.
But again whenever I try to process this in experience, Indiana is useless (because no one insists on vinyasa here except me) and Primary is not Primary without vinyasa, so that’s useless.
In other rooms? I’ve only ever seen one human being pull one pose of 3S with my own eyes; that was a Bhairavasana in SF pulled by this woman who could float into Parighasana and so forth.
In Boston more women than men were doing part or all of 2S, and in Minneapolis, again, more women than men doing part of 2S.
I don’t see any reason why a woman who can pull 2S, especially from Pincha to SUPV, shouldn’t throw down some 3S. What if the arm balances are impossible? Well, so what? What if Kapo’s impossible? Is it really going to cost one enlightenment? Are we really going to play the “get the pose” game to the point of unhealthiness?
There seems some secondary debate here over whether and what is unhealthy exactly: the gymnastics vs. yoga discussion and what makes a “real” woman. I think “real” and “gender” should never be used together, so I can’t contribute to that. I am WAY social constructionist where gender is concerned.
Let the 3S women figure it out, each for herself. Oops, that seems to be what this whole thread was about in the first place :D
Posted by: patrick · Oct 24, 10:29 AM · #
Wow, when I mentioned gymnasts it was only to point out their grace. To differentiate the strength of balance and control from kinds of strength training that make one muscle-bound, that require bulging biceps, for example.
The question of gymnastic training requiring, producing, or selecting for certain body types is another matter. I just thought it was interesting, when Katie mentioned it, that for the most part it’s true—gymnasts have lower centers of gravity, and slimmer hips. For the most part, it’s the gymnastics itself which is responsible for that, since it delays puberty. Keeps them short, too. Can we not notice or acknowledge that? Bad feminist, bad lady? For lots of women, having narrow hips and/or shorter legs is just their natural body type. That also happens. Never meant to suggest that it doesn’t.
Also, I never meant to suggest that a couple hours’ daily vigorous yoga practice would normally provoke, in itself, enough weight loss to cause amenorrhea— in the first place it’s nothing like the up to 8 hours spent working out per day by these little gymnasts, whose fat stores and can’t fuel both the demands of their practice and their growing bodies. (After all, it is actually girls we’re talking about there, normally middle-school age—and by extension, the kind of body that delayed puberty and low weight makes, which is smaller and lighter on the secondary sex characteristics well on into adulthood.) But that’s all there was to that. That was about gymnastics. Olympic gymnastics! NOT about third seires. I wasn’t suggesting that yoga would or could cause the same results. We’re past puberty, for one thing. And some of us came by the narrow hips and shorter legs and smaller breasts genetically, didn’t we? It is possible, after all. Maybe that helps arm balances, maybe it doesn’t. Anyway, it doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not you’re a woman. For instance, my sister is built that way. I definitely don’t consider her to be a 29 year old child. She’s a woman. A woman with a lower center of gravity. It’s not really a controversial observation I was trying to make there. I was not comparing yoga to gymnastics in terms of anything but the graceful control inherent in both.
So the point was only this: narrower hips, shorter legs=less weight below the waist. A little easier to achieve certain arm balances, in Katie’s opinion. Seems entirely logical to me.
Not making any pronouncements about who’s a woman based on body type or ovulation, PROMISE.
Posted by: joy · Oct 24, 12:00 PM · #
Wow! Look at all this! Ok, I have to go to a meeting, but a few things…
Oh my gosh Joy, I should have been more clear. You didn’t play the gymnastics card!
It was this: “These things I have that are in my way are female things, but they’re female things that most female gymnasts tend to lack.”
I worry about reducing ashtanga to gymnastics, because it politicizes the body in a new way. And yet as I tried to hint, gymnastics was what Krishnamacharya added to asana to create ashtanga vinyasa yoga. So even though I don’t like the gymnastics card, it’s not completely inadmissable. :)
I agree with Katie in her thinking that this is not really an issue. We do our practice, and the body adapts at different rates in different ways. As I mentioned a while ago, it took me nearly a year to learn UKKB. And during that time, I loved my practice and didn’t know whether or not I’d ever advance. It didn’t matter.
Finally… I do think a lot of women doing ashtanga stop menstruating due to weight loss. But only in certain social contexts…. For me, This is a difficult reality to square with the other reality of patriarchy in this practice.
I think that the most amazing practitioners are shapely women who do the intense stuff. There’s a certain message this communicates, and I wonder if ashtanga has heard it.
I have a meeting. Maybe I’ll post my shoulders for the record. Tempted to post my ass as well, but the Editor would be probably assert deletion powers for that.
Posted by: (0v0) · Oct 24, 12:52 PM · #
I like the Editor’s style.
Also hope I didn’t seem to be critical of what anyone posted. This is all theoretical to me, because I’m nowhere near 3S. I am, however, short and slim-hipped. Maybe that’s why MS looked at me suspiciously (kidding).
Posted by: karen · Oct 24, 01:01 PM · #
i’m a little confused, Owl. the implication of the discussion is that 3rd series is more easily handled by, ahem, calorie restricting slim yogis. but i thought you mentioned a few months ago that you actually gained a few pounds when you began third. in any case, i do think it would be easier to be throwing your body around upside down in third if there is a slimmer build to be jostling. at least the male third series practitioner i observed was really stringy.
hugs
Arturo
Posted by: arturo · Oct 24, 01:51 PM · #
possibly off topic, but… maybe some teachers are more interested in “yoga archetypes” than gender archetypes. Meaning, there’s a certain form you should be trying to get your body to be before being truly read for series x,y, or z. For example, my teacher is very muscular. It’s just his build. I’ve seen him practice and I know that this body has nothing to do with his style. It’s just in his genetics. He could, if he wanted to, add flourishes to everything- hand standing with ease, any arm balance you want to see… but he just does primary and then 2nd up to Kapo- flourish free, no need to build more shoulder strength. He had another male teacher tell him that he needed to lose weight. There is no body fat on my teacher, so in order for him to lose weight, he would have to pull an Arturo (sorry Arturo- not a slam against you-I know your system works for you, but for this guy, it would be torture). He was made to feel that he will never have success in his practice if he doesn’t lose the bulky shoulders. So it’s not always the women getting the “you need to be skinny to be a bad ass” talk! But like I said, maybe this is a little off topic. (not that you were suggesting skinny= success- which I’ve never read from you, this was more a thought about archetypes in general)
Carry on.
Posted by: Liz · Oct 24, 05:44 PM · #
Wow.
You all have totally lost me now.This is silliness.
Such silliness….ceeweeeally let’s get less cereal.
Owl, snap out of this!
Snap! Out of it!
The body depends on the mind, and the mind on consciousness, and consciousness on awareness, not the other way round. Lets be serious now.
Posted by: Susan · Oct 24, 06:51 PM · #
What’s missing from this discussion, mostly (Owl touched on it, and someone quoted her in the comments) is the word OBSESSION.
Gymnastics seems to be standing in for it.
It’s easy to be obsessive about 3rd, I think.
And like anything else, obsession is unhealthy in large amounts.
That’s what this is about, I think. It’s obsession that causes you to exercise to the point of not bleeding, or not eating, or thinking too much about your shoulders, or etc. Not 3rd series. And not being female.
Maybe the sexism problem here, if there is one, is that some male ashtanga teachers assume women are more vulnerable to obsession than men?
I took a workshop last year with MS, btw, and tho he didn’t get to see my 3rd we talked about it a little bit and he certainly didn’t seem to have a problem with the concept of me doing it.
Posted by: katie · Oct 24, 07:31 PM · #
For me the discussion went off the rails a little when Karen said:
“Interesting that there’s some “what it means to be a woman” (versus “girl”) creeping in here. And that it’s being introduced by women… “
And I thought… hold on! Who’s talking about what it means to be a woman? I’m just talking about gravity centers. T&A don’t a ladee make. ;)
Also Owl, I meant—and this is just a hunch—that ashtanga in itself wouldn’t cause anyone to be so thin that menstruation stops, all on it’s own, without some help (i.e. low-fat diets, calorie restriction, yadda yadda.)
So, that’s what I was saying. Does a woman who has stopped her cylces by working out hard and being very thin in some way diminish her womanhood, anyway? I don’t think so. I’m not even quick to call it unhealthy. I’m not at all informed about the long-term effects of amenorrha and…
I think, in gerneral, Ashtanga needs to stay out of my uterus! I don’t even take lady’s holiday because I can’t see any anatomical reason that I ought to be afraid of doing harm to myself. My teacher JUST tried to talk to me about this yesterday, wanting to counsel me to at least skip inversions. I tried to explain to him that I suspect it’s Brahmin and not so much yogic to keep women out of the shala during their ‘time of uncleanliness’. At least, that’s what I fear. I tried to explain to him about muscles and contractions and all that stuff which comes into play during a woman’s period. They’re doing a job and they’re good at it. They don’t need that much help from gravity…
Anyway that’s the patriarchy that doesn’t sit well with me.
Posted by: joy · Oct 24, 11:48 PM · #
hi again, Owl. for Liz – “pulling an Arturo”- that’s funny. calorie restriction works for me because without it i would be overweight. all my siblings are overweight. i did want to add that not everyone that i’ve seen doing third is super thin. Horseback Rider, with whom i used to practice until he got desperately interested in practicing 3rd and needed to find a teacher who had completed it and could give him the series, is very muscular. however, he is also small, compact like a gymnast. he also has the personality that demands of his body that it obey him in his wishes and his body seems to respond, although he did get injured for a while. he’s okay now. TM saw him practicing once in a workshop and thought that Horseback Rider would not be able to do certain advanced poses because of his build, but he did them, to TM’s surprise. also, Bindi’s teaching partner, The Machine, appears to be very muscular. so i’m not convinced that muscularity per se is a hamper to practicing 3rd.
hugs
Arturo
Posted by: arturo · Oct 25, 04:54 AM · #
There is a body type that is best suited to Third Series, like with any other kind of physical activity (gymnastics, football, running). That doesn’t mean that people with a different body type shouldn’t do Third Series though. It will be a different experience for them and their execution of some poses might be a bit different, but there is nothing wrong with that. A wise teacher sees how much a student’s body can give and what to look for in a practice. There are poses I don’t do well and yet my teacher has moved me past them; I think because they are particularly hard for my body type but still he sees that I’m doing them “well enough”.
As for Third Series changing people’s bodies I guess it depends on whether your constitution allows for that change. I’m a mesomorph and when I was learning Primary I became really lean, while now that I’m further down the line I’ve muscled up again, particularly shoulders and for some reason, legs too. But I wouldn’t expect so much change from, say, an ectomorph (although I’ve seen one of them, a woman, build muscles I thought someone with her build would never!).
The thing that really interests me in this discussion is that I’ve heard about teachers who say that Third is not good for women, but they haven’t been able to describe why or how. And I feel that such a huge generalization (women can be weak or strong, tall or short, fit or not) deserves an explanation. What is it that makes us susceptible to this series hurting us? Does it affect our uteruses, our cycles, our fertility?
Regarding ladies holiday, well, maybe I’m just backwards but I actually welcome those two days off. I didn’t always, the same way that I’d keep exercising when I was into the gym or horseback riding. But now I actually feel that it’s nice to take that time off because frankly, when I’m having my period I feel like shit. If that makes me some deluded Gaia-mentioning hippy then so be it. My energy levels do go up and down in synch with my cycle, and I see nothing wrong with adapting to it, but this is what works for me and it doesn’t necessarily need to be the same for other women. Again, what do we have in common other than we all have an uterus?
Posted by: V · Oct 25, 06:20 AM · #
I want to make sure everyone recognizes that MS did not say 3S isn’t good for women, and was — in everything he said when I was in his classroom — extraordinarily adept at NOT making generalizations.
I’m not interested in figuring out an “answer” here — I’m just interested in how we’re looking at the question. I mean, we could, right from the start, have said: “Nope, any suggestion that women have more issues with 3S is ridiculous. Ladies, carry on with your 3S practices.”
But we didn’t. We (women) started creating some categories (physical and cultural). I’m not saying that’s bad — I’m just saying I find it really interesting that that’s what we did.
The only thing I believe, in relation to this thread, is that there shouldn’t be a blanket statement about women/gymnasts/menstruation/third series, etc., etc.
How we think is more interesting than what we think. But that’s just me.
May all of us balance gracefully on our arms. :-)
Posted by: karen · Oct 25, 06:38 AM · #
They impose limitations, then they discuss: “it is wrong to have any limitations” and finally they all agree “our practice should be without limitations”. What a vaste of time. Oh no! They’re moving unconsciousness veil deeper into something, but I forgot where…
Posted by: Ah · Oct 25, 07:00 AM · #
What was the blanket statement, and who said it? That’s what I honestly can’t find anywhere in these comments. It looks to me like the only one who made a statement about women and third series was Owl’s teacher when he told her she didn’t need to worry about trying to do certain things. But everyone here has been saying, “okay, that body type might have an easier/more difficult time (based on observable phenomenon in other types of ‘sports’ ;), but that doesn’t mean she shouldn’t try, and it certainly doesn’t mean she wouldn’t succeed.” Followed up by examples of 3S women who don’t fit in with the “gymnast” body type.
I guess I’m asking, we were creating a category when we noticed that, among women doing a lot of arm balancing, many of them were slight of frame? I think that’s noticing a trend, not creating a category.
I guess we could have all come out the gate declaring that the very idea of a body—ANY body—having different challenges or hurdles with respect to asana, was ridiculous. But that would have been strange, wouldn’t it? Talk about blanket statements, that would have been a big one.
For the record, I’m shaping up to be a pretty good arm balancer. Never had a problem taking lotus in pincha, and mayurasana came pretty easily to me as well. I have long legs, a butt, and boobs.
I like that closing, BTW— May all of us balance gracefully on our arms… Perfect :)
Oh, V! one thinks you’re a gaia-mentioning hippy! I just don’t happen to feel bad during my period. Or if I do, sometimes, physical activity seems to help. Must be the endorphins. But of course, not feeling good is the perfect reason all on its own to not stress the body, don’t you think so? You don’t need anyone’s sanction to know what’s going on in your own body.
Posted by: joy · Oct 25, 07:21 AM · #
So interesting… I look forward to doing the lab work on this in the coming years! Once I get a little more stamina for bhairavasana, I think it won’t be long before I’m knocking on the arm balance door. I’m no 15-year-old gymast, I’m 40 and want to take care of myself, and if I judge the effects to be adverse I’ll change my practice, that much I know. I’m glad to think that short legs and small breasts will help, I’m only missing the slim hips! I do want to drop a couple of pounds and feel it will be necessary and I’m interested in this desire of mine to become a little slighter, but I’ll still be well within norms so I don’t see the harm. It’s about the feeling of well-being, and I think one has to travel light in order to fly. For me with lightness comes a deeper energetic awareness. Partly it’s as simple as not eating too much at one meal.
To me it’s as simple as accounting, one looks at all the benefits from the practice here and now, and if there are any drawbacks, takes a very close look at them and asks questions.
I remember when my sacrum used to pop out of whack all the time, it was painful and I felt so unstable, I thought that to carry on with upavistha konasana and supta k was going to reduce me to a broken wreck. That never happened. Cary and Kino can do the series and both look really, really well to me and also so grounded and realised.
We need to just keep on approaching the impossible with an open mind, practice has a way of surprising us time after time.
Posted by: susananda · Oct 25, 07:59 AM · #
I love you people. I learned a lot in this thread.
Breaking down categories and collaborating about something so personal, and so specific, is not a vaste of time.
More in a bit about archetypes, sticklerism, Gaia, obsessivenss, and this whole conundrum of having a body.
xoxovo
Posted by: (0v0) · Oct 25, 09:57 AM · #
We all search for freedom. Isn’t it? Your practice is the expression of that search. Do you agree? And, who searches for freedom? Only the one who is not free searches for freedom. Only a slave tries to be free… But you can find the freedom, simply because you do not admit that you are a slave, you don’t see your own slavery dear Owl. That slavery consists of “breaking down categories and collaborating about something so personal, and so specific”!
To be free is to be free. You are just free.
Why did you not say to that teacher… fuck off my dear teacher, I’ll practice what I want to practice! Investigate your prison Owl. Once upon a time (when you were 3) you had your freedom, but later on you lost your courage. Why? Write about that, leave archetypes, sticklerism, Gaia and other stupidities on the side.
Posted by: Ah · Oct 25, 11:08 AM · #
Dismissing the specific to run away into the fantasy of transcendence. I smell bad advaita again. Of course, any religion with a notion of afterlife or heaven does exactly this.
Flight toward the light. Spiritual escapism. Running away from the body, which is the ground and the repository of all our lived experience.
In this context, the primacy of the body and the beautiful interestingness of its specificity could not be more clear.
Go put your advaita in your ass and see what that does for your “spirituality.” Oh!
Posted by: (0v0) · Oct 25, 11:43 AM · #
P.S. Susan-Moody, however, was right. But I was too far gone down the rabbit hole by then. And so much the better.
Posted by: (0v0) · Oct 25, 11:47 AM · #
:-)
It is you who talk about transcendence, Spiritual escapism , advaita ass, the primacy of the body… not me.
I am asking simple question: Why did you not say to that teacher: “fuck off my dear teacher, I’ll practice what I want to practice!”... Why this discussion (mind masturbation)?
Posted by: Oh · Oct 25, 12:09 PM · #
oops, V, that was NO one thinks… sorry
Posted by: joy · Oct 25, 12:29 PM · #
Here is the present for you dear Owl…
You have other parts…3, 4 etc… on youtube
Enjoy.
Posted by: OUSPENSKY · Oct 25, 03:13 PM · #
Fine. Don’t abuse your privilege troll. You’ll just get edited and then banned. And this obsessiveness is horrible for you.
Posted by: (0v0) · Oct 25, 03:18 PM · #
LOL Joy, I didn’t even noticed the missing “no” :-D
Posted by: V · Oct 25, 03:32 PM · #
fine. ban me now, I’m use to it :) what obsessiveness?
Posted by: OUSPENSKY · Oct 25, 03:57 PM · #
We know the, ah, theory. But not so well as we know tonsilitis.
Posted by: meniscusmerange · Oct 26, 10:48 AM · #