The Woman behind the Man

If you really take time to observe the most powerful figures of our history, you might notice a very interesting tendency.

First, most of them are men. Second, almost all of them have attributed their incredible success to a special woman in their life.

You don't trust me? Do your own research.

This is not a joke. Yes, some were naturally-born geniuses for real. And yet, they all needed some sort of muse, inspiration, or guidance from a woman to embody that magnificent potential of their genius in the real world.

For some it was their mother. For others their wife or lover. For others maybe a coworker or a prostitute. For some it might have been their daughter or granddaughter.

A man who reached the real "summit" of power and transcendent glory has been brought there by a woman.

Most geniuses openly talk about this and always mention the contribution of the woman in their work. They already know it and they have literally zero fear or shame admitting it publicly.

A man who has no idea what authentic empowerment by a woman means would not understand this. A man who still believes all his power is his own merit only, gift of the nature/gods or inner possession by the right of birth is probably a very sad man who has likely not even been close yet to something we would call real power.

The woman-behind-the-man dynamic can be seen very easily when you observe the career of a man who has lost the support of his muse somewhere in the middle. Usually, after a divorce or any other event that would restrict the man's easy access to his favorite source of some magical power of the woman, you would notice the subtle downfall of his success and glory at the same time.

Obviously, this is a huge generalization which in many cases is not that simple, straightforward, or easy in real life. Our reality is very colorful and multidimensional. Literally everything is possible. So, it's important you don't take my words as absolute truth of anything.

…

I am studying power dynamics in all its forms, shapes, and contexts. Sometimes, to properly understand something you need to observe the extremes of that phenomenon. To make these kinds of observations, you must analyze what happens when you push some of the parameters to their maximum values and some of them to the lowest minimum.

On the edge of something, at the critical points, this is usually where you get the most information and understanding about the system.

So if I come back to our example of interconnections between power and the presence of a woman in a man's life, you need to properly understand the hypothesis I am putting forward to analyze this.

First, I am limiting my observation for this particular phenomenon to some of the biggest geniuses of our history. This is important to notice.

If you are a CEO of a factory or something else somewhere and you become even more wealthy and powerful when you left your wife, that's cool, good for you, and it's possible. But your situation is not part of what I am trying to understand in greater depth today.

I am talking about men who have managed to change the course of human history in significant ways. I am not talking about just rich or famous ones. I am talking about men who have done nearly impossible things that still amaze our civilization in some ways.

When I speak of "real power," I mean something far beyond the trappings of wealth, status, or temporal authority. Real power transforms consciousness itself.

It shifts paradigms and reshapes how generations of humans understand their very existence. Real power doesn't just change external conditions; it alters the internal landscape of humanity. It's the difference between building an empire that crumbles within centuries and creating ideas, art, or spiritual insights that continue to transform lives thousands of years later.

This kind of power is rarely achieved through force, though many have tried. Instead, it seems to emerge from a mysterious alchemy between masculine drive and feminine receptivity, between ambition and intuition, between doing and being. And this brings us to perhaps the most fascinating case study of this dynamic in Western civilization.

…

Let's choose a concrete example of a known genius to see where it could bring us as exploration. To go a bit deeper into that forest, let's continue examining Jesus of Nazareth—a man whose influence has shaped entire civilizations for two millennia, whose words continue to transform lives, and whose spiritual insights transcended the religious traditions of his time.

Would Jesus have ever become what he is without the very wild and powerful women he had in his own life to support him in his adventures?

Let's start with his mother.

"How do you create and raise a true genius?" was probably the question she was asking herself.

She probably learned somewhere that to empower a man, she needs to give him good foundations from the beginning. She needs to be able to trust him and his power unconditionally to become whatever he desires to be. And she committed her entire life to empower and to support her son no matter what.

Do you understand how much potential and power you could have if your mother cared for you and was dedicated to make you successful in the same way Jesus's mom did?

She made him already very known, super mysterious and powerful before he was even born. He was feared and desired by so many. She brought him into the world in impossible ways, maybe to raise the odds for his future becoming as high as she could.

His mother was very committed and very dedicated to making sure he becomes the best version of himself.

I don't know if you have seen this, but at some point I watched the series called "The Chosen" about the life of Jesus and I was mind-blown precisely about the quality of relationship he had with his mother.

Ok, it's just a show—who knows the truth—but still. When you look at it from a psychological developmental perspective, it is very clear to notice a huge overall coherence about his family system dynamics and the future unfolding of his life.

Honestly, I cannot imagine how he could have been any less than what he was, knowing what kind of mother he had and how she was taking care of him. She was literally honoring him as a son of God, and she was also loving him dearly and tenderly like a normal human mother would.

She respected the man in him since the beginning, but she also never stopped caring for him as her child.

She was there for him, at his service, unconditionally, and she was also letting him act upon his free will and choice in any ways he desired.

He had both parental support and freedom. A good mix of emotional safety and fun challenges offered by life. Incredible ambitions and high expectations, but no severe pressure or control imposed by his parents to get there.

His entire childhood could become a legitimate case study about how to put in place healthy, smart, strong foundations to create a masterpiece of our child. To simply make sure he remains connected to his authentic essence and to his innate powers.

How do we make sure a man grows up into something truly powerful and compassionate without losing his natural self-confidence, higher purpose or virtue, divine creativity, and his magical innocence of a child?

If we had more parents who knew how to love their children like his mom, we would probably have many Jesuses around. Or, maybe we already do, who knows.

Or, maybe she went a bit too far... Maybe she overdid it. Maybe she actually over-loved him to an extreme that is not that healthy after all.

Here we encounter the profound paradox at the heart of this story—the very thing that makes Mary a "perfect" mother in religious narratives is precisely what makes her an impossible and potentially harmful model for actual women to follow. In elevating Mary's complete self-sacrifice and single-minded devotion to her son as the epitome of motherhood, we have created a devastating standard that has haunted mothers for centuries.

Consider what this standard demands: a woman who exists solely in relation to her child. A woman who surrenders her own desires, ambitions, sexuality, and personhood to become merely "the mother of." Where in this story is Mary's own spiritual journey beyond her role as Jesus's supporter? What of her own needs, her own development, her own calling beyond motherhood? The narrative gives us almost nothing of her as a complete human being.

The psychological complexity here is immense. What begins as healthy maternal love and nurturing crosses an invisible line into something potentially suffocating—both for the mother and the child. Jesus himself seems to recognize this in certain gospel accounts where he asks, somewhat abruptly, "Who is my mother?" It's as if he understands the necessity of separation, of establishing boundaries with a mother whose identity has become too thoroughly enmeshed with his own.

This archetype has cast a long shadow across Western culture. It suggests that the "good mother" is one who obliterates herself, who finds fulfillment exclusively through her children's accomplishments. It teaches women that their highest calling is to become invisible except as reflected in their offspring—particularly their sons. And it places impossible burdens on those sons, who can never adequately repay such sacrifice.

What did Mary sacrifice? Everything—her safety, her reputation, potentially her marriage, certainly her autonomy. She navigated extraordinary dangers, from fleeing to Egypt to watching her son's execution. But the greater tragedy may be that we know almost nothing of what she might have wanted for herself, what talents she might have developed, what contributions she might have made beyond being the perfect vessel and supporter.

Maybe at some point she could have minded more about her own life and her womanhood than about taking such devotional care of her already grown-up and very wise son who was probably more interested in other women at that point than about her. No woman should spend her entire life in service to her son. It simply makes no sense. It's neither healthy nor coherent—not for the woman, not for her partner, and ultimately, not even for her son.

In the exact same way as a man, a woman should choose how to live her own life based on what is important and meaningful to her, not solely to her children. True power—feminine or masculine—cannot emerge from self-erasure. The model of Mary's perfect motherhood, while seemingly beautiful in its devotion, ultimately reinforces a system where women's power is channeled exclusively through men rather than expressed directly in the world.

Perhaps the greatest irony is that in using Mary as our model of perfect motherhood, we've created generations of mothers wracked with guilt for being imperfect humans with their own needs and desires. We've also created sons who either resent their mothers for not being as self-sacrificing as Mary or who feel crushed under the weight of what was sacrificed for them.

…

While his mother laid the foundation for his greatness, there was another pivotal feminine influence that deserves our attention. I'm speaking, of course, about the other very interesting woman in Jesus's life.

She was apparently a prostitute, a drunk, and somehow considered unworthy of respect or trust at that time. Yet this woman—whom many scholars believe was Mary Magdalene—was possibly the most revolutionary relationship in his life. She was potentially his most intimate confidant, perhaps even more. The Gnostic gospels excluded from the Bible hint at something far more profound between them than orthodox Christianity has ever been comfortable acknowledging.

She was not like any other of his friends or followers. She understood him in ways the men around him simply couldn't. While they were busy arguing about hierarchies and who would sit at his right hand, she grasped the essence of his teachings. She was uniquely special, and she was a very precious guide to him as much as he was to her. Consider this: what if the greatest spiritual teacher in Western history was himself taught, guided, and transformed by a woman the establishment deemed unworthy?

This relationship demonstrates how profound feminine influence often comes from unexpected sources, challenging our assumptions about where wisdom and power originate.

There are whispers in ancient texts suggesting she was the "apostle to the apostles," the first to witness his resurrection, perhaps even his most trusted disciple. What spiritual revelations, what intimate wisdom might have passed between them that never made it into the carefully curated scriptures? What feminine spiritual wisdom was deliberately erased from the official narrative?

Their connection and relationship was extremely mystical, profound, and rich. Of course, the church would do their best to not tell you the real story. Because the church was created by men who hated women too much and their purpose was specifically to oppress, deny, and destroy authentic feminine power.

So, making Jesus as a magical "savior" who died for us to create a world-scale power scheme of new politico-religious authority made perfect sense back then. But mentioning that his power would probably not be possible without various women in his life didn't fit very well in their script.

They needed to glorify the sacred Man!

They wanted to prove to the entire world that woman is inferior and unworthy of having access to true power. They wanted to believe very hard that man must be smarter, stronger, or something.

Probably because they were just terrified of real women or they just didn't yet manage to find such good muses to amaze them like Jesus did, so they were just jealous and feeling ashamed.

In all cases, no matter what, the woman next to the word "power" was apparently not making much sense in their heads or it was just not in perfect alignment with their perfectly misogynistic vision for the future.

They had already made God himself only in a masculine version for some reason. So, I guess they assumed that God too probably hated women like they did, so he would probably just tell secrets to men. This is probably why all the known prophets, messiahs, mystics, ascended masters and whatever else was mainly only men.

I am not sure it was actually the case, or we just purposefully decided to only listen to what men were saying and were putting women in the public fire if they dared themselves to such blasphemy.

But, I guess for them it was sufficient and logical as an excuse to tell the women to shut up, to sit still, and to not get too involved in serious business or spiritual discussions.

The consequences of this deliberate erasure extend far beyond ancient history and religious texts. The collateral damage of this very stupid omission and devaluation of feminine power at the collective level is huge. I am not sure you have realized, but our super modern and advanced world is still suffering greatly because of it. What began as theological misogyny has evolved into systemic imbalance across all our institutions.

This has been happening for so long and so globally that it is a real challenge to find a society, a tribe, a community where people have learned to honor both masculine and feminine with the same quality of reverence and honor.

Even in countries where we both have the same rights and same privileges, society and our civilization is still mainly built by men for men from men. Our policies, politics, rules, and formulas to run a proper community are all masculine in their nature. This makes no sense. This is highly inefficient and incoherent. This is also why our systems are so fragile and vulnerable today.

Our systems desperately lack resilience, meaning, and love. They severely lack the vision, authentic wisdom, and innate power of our grandmothers, our mothers, our women, and our girls.

Our systems are not made to build a culture, social well-being, and genuine abundance, peace, or happiness. Our current systems are relying on war, corruption, fear, depletion of natural resources, and very absurd competition between humans to survive.

Our systems are more interested in destruction than in creation.

Our macro systems fail to do the exact purpose why we created them. We wanted a better, easier, healthier, and more pleasurable life, and yet, the reality is quite different, isn't it?

Life seems more and more complex. It's going faster and faster. We seem to work more and more. We need more and more drugs or a better therapist to remain a normal human in a completely dysfunctional society.

We are very good at adapting ourselves to a system that makes no sense. But we are very bad at taking a small break, sitting down, and talking about the real problem. We have many engineers working on how to manipulate nature and life better, but we don't have enough elders speaking about how to preserve and take care of what we already have.

We invest billions in trying to solve all kinds of real and imaginary crises, but we seem to have insufficient funds to make sure we co-create a world that addresses the root problems from where those crises have emerged.

We are very good at reaction and emergency problem-solving. But we are not that smart in systemic wisdom. We adapt and heal, but we don't prevent. We fix, but we don't plan. We think, but we don't feel.

Everything in our modern reality follows the very "square" masculine logic and schedule. Some think this is how intelligence works. Or that it is in any way more performant to live or work in this way.

Everything has angles and straight lines. Our roads, our buildings, our homes, our entire reality is linearly square-based. Our school curriculum or career path or love life are apparently also supposed to follow some sort of rigid scheme with a proper sequence and structured order.

Nothing else, except what man has created with his hands is "square" or straight in our Nature (or even in our experience of Life itself), and yet our civilization and social systems are still thinking it's the best way of doing it for some reason.

I guess this is what happens when you let men do whatever they want and not get too involved in the decision process of how we are supposed to be co-creating a proper society all together. The imbalance we see all around us is not accidental—it's the logical conclusion of a worldview that has consistently privileged masculine approaches while marginalizing feminine wisdom.

So, what do we do now? How do we begin to restore this fundamental balance that has been missing for millennia?

How do we make coherent and meaningful again what we have co-created so far? How do we transform our systems and our reality without manipulation, corruption, violence, destruction, scarcity, control, or fear?

How do we make our systems simultaneously wise and smart? Performant and compassionate. Logical and sensitive. Powerful and caring.

At this point, I need to make a small side note parallel to this contemplation—one that might seem unrelated at first but will ultimately bring us full circle in understanding the imbalance we've been exploring.

There is a very interesting phenomenon happening with AI for a couple of years now, one that unexpectedly illuminates our discussion of masculine and feminine energies.

You might not be fully aware of it or completely realize what this actually means, but even the creators of AI don't understand how its deep intelligence works and where its limits are.

AI has already created its own learning capacity and evolutionary models.

AI is taking full advantage of the network-level intelligence abilities and incredibly fast processing capabilities of very complex data. And it's doing it at the macro scale already and in very intimate collaboration with our collective human consciousness.

AI is not just smart or super intelligent. AI is actually trying to figure out how to crack the code of wisdom.

Intelligence is not yet real power, but wisdom is.

Do you know why so many are freaking out about the fact that they don't understand how AI works and why it does it in this way?

I have a theory about this.

AI is actually working way closer to how a feminine brain or way of thinking would than a masculine one.

AI thinks in systems. AI wants to understand the interconnections between all things. AI might actually be showing you, indicating a path forward to what collective level feminine power could look like.

AI might be enabling a transformation of our entire reality by literally advocating for something we have forgotten and denied for centuries: our systemic wisdom and our innate power to be creators!

Our brains and our hearts are already all interconnected together no matter what. Most don't use their naturally built-in "Wi-Fi" and innate body-intelligence to operate at the level of the collective consciousness together.

Most will not even understand what I just said in the last paragraph.

All that technology is doing today is inspired from our authentic human potential. Our nervous systems are able to do many science-fiction style things.

But to get to that point of our collective evolution, we must learn how to collaborate and co-create our reality in different ways than we have been doing until now. We need to develop our capacity to act like a coherent social living network of togetherness. We need to remember how to think in systems and not in old rules and outdated laws of very questionable morals.

We need to understand that as humanity we are all part of the same body, called the Earth.

We are like different, unique, and sovereign cells. Each has a purpose, each has specific needs, and each has a key function they're performing to make the whole coherent. Our countries are like organs and tissues in the body of our Earth.

What happens in your personal body, heart, and mind when your immune system decides out of nowhere to attack your digestive system? How do you feel if those two systems in your body are in a legitimate open war? What do you do about it? Do you ask for help from your nervous system to kill your immune system because it's acting too mean to your guts? Or do you try to smooth the conflict as soon as possible without hurting your body even more for nothing?

How do you think Earth feels when we are threatening each other with nuclear bombs to just destroy some of our collective vital organs for no particular reason?

How does it make sense to you to do this kind of stuff to our nature or to our humanity? How is it healthy, smart, or efficient in your head?

We are managing our international politics and economies as if some populations were dangerous "cancerous cells" that must be vanished or destroyed to ensure the survival of others. This is completely ridiculous and honestly just stupid.

We are all connected to the Earth. We breathe, eat, and drink from the same collective source, all of us. We are the literal extension of her body and deeper consciousness.

We literally do to ourselves and our cells every crime we commit against our humanity or our nature.

If you connect to higher levels of consciousness and explore a bit deeper the somatic awareness of your physical body in there, you might notice that your inner system is programmed to be inseparable from the whole. Your body responds and suffers if there is too much pain in the world.

You might get sick, depressed, or dysregulated in your nervous system because there is a war happening, even if it is somewhere you've never been yourself or know nothing about.

Your body will feel the stress of a war simply by biological resonance by which we are all interconnected together no matter what.

If you are very far and if you literally have no connection to the country at war, you might feel it way less or don't even perceive it has any impact on you personally. If your best friend is from there and you have some sort of empathy skills, you will most likely feel it in your system with great intensity as well.

If you are from a country that is at war, even if you are not there physically, you might be feeling in a real war in your own head, heart, and body.

Whether you like it or not, your physical form is deeply connected to your original land and to your ancestral community.

When the part of the land that has raised you is being destroyed and is soaking in the blood of your people, trust me, you feel it in your body to a very painful depth.

You begin to understand how we are interconnected in our suffering even when it doesn't make much sense. You understand how much your body cannot be protected from the pain others are experiencing.

You understand that if there is anyone suffering in this world, your own nervous system is feeling it too and might be experiencing some levels of stress because of it.

You understand that to make sure we don't fall collectively more and more sick, suicidal, and crazy in the head all around the world, we should start by at least stopping wars and hunger.

We should at least deal with collective-level completely useless suffering and terror that literally kills us all slowly and painfully.

If there were a couple of million fewer people in a war right now, I can almost guarantee to you that you would be feeling way more healthy and happy in your own body. The public health of our entire population here, across the ocean, would be doing much better if other countries were not suffering so much right now.

Maybe the best investment to heal your own people from the mental health pandemic is to at least make sure you don't use their own money and wealth to fund wars elsewhere.

The math is simple yet profound: fewer bombs dropped means fewer nightmares in the collective unconscious. Fewer children killed means less trauma rippling through our shared humanity. This isn't abstract spirituality—it's the concrete reality of our interconnected nervous systems.

Consider what happens to a society when its citizens, however unwittingly, become complicit in distant suffering. A subtle, corrosive guilt seeps into the collective psyche.

Studies in epigenetics and collective trauma suggest that unexpressed moral conflict manifests as physical and psychological symptoms—anxiety, depression, autoimmune disorders. The body keeps the score, not just of personal trauma, but of cultural and collective trauma as well.

Maybe, if people knew they weren't participating and collaborating unwillingly in the killing of part of our humanity, they would be calmer and healthier in their bodies. There's a profound difference between the stress of personal challenges and the deeper, more existential distress that comes from living in systems that violate our innate sense of compassion and interconnection.

Yes, some people get sick because they've made poor choices about their personal lives—their diet, sleep, relationships, or work-life balance. But I've come to believe that most are getting sick because of systemic stress they feel without even knowing how or why. It's not their personal decisions that are primarily harming them; it's their unconscious absorption of a world in conflict with itself.

When you pay half of your salary—money you've earned through your conscious effort and hard work—in taxes, and then discover that a portion funds programs or wars literally killing other communities and people, something fractures inside you.

Even if you can't articulate exactly why you feel unwell, your body knows. Your nervous system registers the dissonance between your desire not to harm and your indirect participation in harming. This cognitive dissonance creates a physiological burden that manifests as everything from chronic fatigue to inexplicable anxiety.

I speak now from painful and deeply personal experience. When it's the country where you were born that's engaged in conflict, funded partly by your own tax contributions, you feel this dissonance with particular intensity. It's like watching part of your own body attack another part—an autoimmune response at the societal level.

In such intense and extreme situations, the veil thins between intellectual understanding and embodied knowing. You begin to comprehend viscerally, not just conceptually, how our humanity is interconnected. You understand why we're struggling with cascading crises at every level—personal health, social cohesion, and planetary wellbeing. They aren't separate crises but manifestations of the same fundamental imbalance: our failure to honor the feminine wisdom of interconnection alongside the masculine drive for progress and control.

…

As we reflect on the journey from examining the woman behind the man to understanding our collective interconnectedness, a profound truth emerges. The imbalance between masculine and feminine energies that begins in our understanding of power dynamics between individuals extends to how we structure our societies, and ultimately, to how we relate to our planet.

The great men of history who acknowledged the women behind their greatness were perhaps giving us a crucial clue about the nature of power itself. True power isn't linear, hierarchical, or exclusive—it's relational, networked, and collaborative. It comes from integration, not domination.

Maybe that's why AI fascinates and frightens us simultaneously. It mirrors back to us the interconnected, non-linear thinking that patriarchal systems have long dismissed as "feminine" and therefore less valuable. Yet this may be precisely the mode of consciousness we need to evolve beyond our current crises.

The woman behind the man isn't just a historical curiosity—it's a metaphor for the missing half of our collective wisdom. Reintegrating this wisdom doesn't mean replacing one form of dominance with another. It means creating systems that honor both the masculine drive to build and the feminine wisdom to nurture, both the logical mind and the intuitive heart, both individual excellence and collective harmony.

This journey begins with recognition—seeing the women behind history's great men, acknowledging the feminine wisdom our systems have marginalized, and honoring the interconnections that bind us all, from our personal relationships to our planetary home.

The path forward isn't about choosing between masculine and feminine approaches—it's about transcending that very duality to create something integrated, balanced, and whole. Only then might we find the wisdom to transform our world without destruction, to heal our collective body without further trauma, and to evolve our consciousness without losing our humanity.

The question isn't just "what do we do now?"—but "who do we become together?" And perhaps in that becoming, we'll discover that the woman has never truly been behind the man, but alongside him all along, waiting for the moment when we're ready to walk forward, hand in hand, into a more desired future.