This is also of great interest to me. My school staff is primarily female and we haven't had that reflection. While [@mention:449693036223847456] there is likely not value in categorizing something as masculine. The conversation has value because it is worth considering and discussing how "others" see the process whether that be women, people of other cultures, other races etc. I think these reflections can contribute to the conversation about how this new structure, which I believe will be immensely impactful on the future of our world, can be inclusive of all. Historically structures have put some people at a disadvantage. Holacracy is not responsible for that, but we do not want to participate in the furthering of that type of structural bias.
We had a visiting educator at our school observe our governance meeting and she does a lot of work with Anti-Bias curriculum in her school so I enjoyed reflecting on the process with her. One thing she reflected on was that language barriers can make it hard for a partner to articulate harm during objections and that language can be because a partner has a different native language or because the specific Holacracy words are foreign in some way. She also reflected that she saw great power in the explicit nature of Holacracy because one thing that can disadvantage any group that is in a minority is the unspoken norms and implicit expectations of the majority group. I think the clarity of Holacracy constitution and process levels the playing field in many ways.
@adam I would also reflect that as a woman I don't see female and male values.
I do see in Holacracy what I interpret as a very euro-american way of being but I say that without and value judgement just a open reflection. I appreciate the deep conversation and reflection.