Is Wicca too gender-focused?

[FreezBee]

Intro
In my discussion with tmancour in the thread The Ontology of the Divine(s), tmancour wrote:

tmancour

No importance? Probably not. But the Manichean ideal you describe has made the worship of such dualities a royal pain in the spiritual butt for centuries, now. While it might be aesthetically pleasing, dual-worshipping cults like Christianity and Islam make the automatic leap, "If we worship a god of light, then by necessity all else is darkness". That makes them piss-poor neightbors for the mind-your-own-business pagan cultures. I think what is even more telling is how quickly these religions are willing to shove the Goddess into the reviled darkness and condemn all of Her sacred works -- sex, in particular. Some people just don't know how to party.

© source where applicable

What tmancour refers to here is, what he calls dualism, the idea (in this case) of two gods dividing the world between them, the one, the God of Light, being good, the other, the God of Darkness, being bad.

Have I understood you correctly here, tmancour? If not, ooopps!

The Goddess
After giving his conception of dualism, tmancour mentions "the Goddess", who is shoved into the reviled darkness.

There is no goddess in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. But does it matter? And don't forget that Christians identify a lot of male gods with Satan (= the Darkness in Christian mythology), not just female gods.

Is sex part of the sacred works of the Goddess? I would have to ask: which goddesss? Not Isis, not Cybele. It is true for Aphrodite, of course.

We should make a distinction between goddesses having been connected with fertility and goddesses having had sex as their sacred works.

Most pagan (in the sense of 'rural') cultures have had a god of fertility and a goddess of fertility. And we happen to know that even some of Yahweh 's worshippers thought him connected with a goddess, Asherah, more specifically.

The Phoenician goddess by that name was usually worshipped in the shape of a live tree or a wooden pole in a stone basement. Her name literally means 'upright', and she was though of as the mother of all life. In Phoenician texts, her consort was El, the creator of everything. Note here the difference between creation and giving life. But Asherah is not associated with sex. Asherah and El had a son, Ba'al Hadad, and a daughter, Astaroth (Astarte/Ishtar). These two were not only brother and sister, but also a husband and wife! But Astaroth is not in particular associated with sex.

To be honest, I believe it is a Christian myth that other religions were all about sex, but I also believe it is a Pagan myth that Christianity saw female sexuality as something especially bad and therefore Mary, mother of Jesus, had to be a virgin.


The problem with the idea of suppressed female sexuality is that it is rather a modern thing projected back in time. Some feminists today say that the male-dominated Christian religion has suppressed female sexuality. Other feminists today say that there is no female sexuality, it is only men that have any interest in sex.

Now, does it make any difference, how things were in the past? It is not the present that depends on the past, but the past that depends on the present. One day I heard a radio-program where a group of women were talking about how men always only thought about sex. I mean, we have a group of women that talk about sex, even if they do it by claiming that it's what men are thinking about

Should we at all consider gender?
It may be an inappropriate place to throw in a Bible quote, but I'll do it anyway:

Galatians 3:28

There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

© source where applicable

This verse has *always* meant a lot to me, that there should not be made any distinction between people (in this case Christians) based on ethnicity, social class, or gender. And why? Because these determinations are all social constructs! Therefore, a religion that reaches a deep enough level should not make a distinction between whether a god has the one or the other gender, or any gender at all.

Supposedly, this is the Wiccan/Neo-pagan position, but why then do they -- as has tmancour -- refer to the sacred works of the Goddess -- sex, in particular?


- FreezBee

[Durthorin]

This verse has *always* meant a lot to me, that there should not be made any distinction between people (in this case Christians) based on ethnicity, social class, or gender. And why? Because these determinations are all social constructs! Therefore, a religion that reaches a deep enough level should not make a distinction between whether a god has the one or the other gender, or any gender at all.

Supposedly, this is the Wiccan/Neo-pagan position, but why then do they -- as has tmancour -- refer to the sacred works of the Goddess -- sex, in particular?


- FreezBee

Gender itself is not a social construct, how gender is reacted to and viewed is. Within many but not all early cultures you can see see an attitude of devaluing women. This was not expressly a Christian problem since many Pagan cultures reacted in the same exact manner. The answer to why is often cited as being both sociological and demographic. In a non-modern culture a woman was a drag on scarce resources. A male could do more work, fight etc.. wereas a female took up just as much resources to feed, cloth etc. Thus families valued male children and tended to consider the worth of a female only in her value as trade good.

There are actually educated men of the ancient era who saw women is empty vessels and that the creation of a child was all about the seed, they were merly the soil it was planted in. Later on you had Christian thinkers of great overall merit who actually argued if women "really" had souls.

As to the gender of God.. well here we get into a bit of a theological quandry. You see as a Christian you view everything as coming back to a central montheistic Diety ie God.. now in earlier times this non-gender specific God was assigned a gender of male. Why? Because at the time "male" translated to powerful and worthy of being followed etc, A social construct as you put it. Yet by your own concept were we to go thru the Bible and replace all the male pronouns with female pronouns and refer to God as Goddess.. we would in essence be just as right. Having heard of this being done and the furor it caused I'd say there is a built in bias within Christian to keep God=Male.

Now, in Pagan theology.. we see a world that has clear lines of male and female. We see them as balanced.. a male alone dies, a female alone dies, togther and sexually they create life.. The Gods seem to have a made a point on that. We also in most cases do not see a single central Diety that runs everything, nor do we think of that view as "a deeper level of understanding". As to sex being a sacred to the Goddess, depends on the Goddess.. but the divine female in all her aspects is most often (exceptions exist) a creative force. We see her as nurturing life because as the woman you marry or the mother who raised you that is the role they have taken. Every woman is an aspect of the Goddess as every man is a an aspect of the God.. sacred sex is therefore about an affirmation of life/creation and is always a gift from the Goddess. It is two male/female joining to create life. When a male takes what is not offered the act ceases to be an affirmation of life and becomes an example of conquest, humilation and rape.

Brighid Bless, Dur

[Zeluvia]

Throwing rocks at goddesses now? = )

The Ugarit texts are interesting because there was a full pantheon of male and female dieties in canaan, and indeed it is probable that Yahweh had a consort, who is breifly refered to in the Bible.

Why they got rid of the female aspect of their religion I am not sure = )

I think we should Consider gender...not as in sexuality so much as in the archetypes of male and female, the yin and yang of energy.

[FreezBee]

Gender itself is not a social construct, how gender is reacted to and viewed is.

Hi Durthorin;

I am trying to figure out exactly, what you are saying here. You appear to imply that gender is something independent of society. Do you here refer to gender=biological sex?

Within many but not all early cultures you can see see an attitude of devaluing women. This was not expressly a Christian problem since many Pagan cultures reacted in the same exact manner.

But what is meant by devaluing women? I have grown up in a feminist police state, where you as a man or a boy devalue women by simply being alive!

I am quite certain that much of the devaluation of women is a modern myth -- a different thing than that most (all?) cultures we know about had different gender rôles, but that's a different thing than devaluation of women.

The answer to why is often cited as being both sociological and demographic. In a non-modern culture a woman was a drag on scarce resources. A male could do more work, fight etc.. wereas a female took up just as much resources to feed, cloth etc. Thus families valued male children and tended to consider the worth of a female only in her value as trade good.

That is certainly the picture we are always given, and it may have some truth to it. But if we clean away all the feminist coating, what is left? Personally, I am for a complete reinterpretation of sociological material in an anti-feminist way

There are actually educated men of the ancient era who saw women is empty vessels and that the creation of a child was all about the seed, they were merly the soil it was planted in. Later on you had Christian thinkers of great overall merit who actually argued if women "really" had souls.

Yes, I have heard all that. But I have never heard the arguments used. Could it be that these people have been misrepresented?

As to the gender of God.. well here we get into a bit of a theological quandry. You see as a Christian you view everything as coming back to a central montheistic Diety ie God.. now in earlier times this non-gender specific God was assigned a gender of male. Why? Because at the time "male" translated to powerful and worthy of being followed etc, A social construct as you put it. Yet by your own concept were we to go thru the Bible and replace all the male pronouns with female pronouns and refer to God as Goddess.. we would in essence be just as right.

Quite true -- referring to the Christian god as 'Mother' rather than 'Father' is just as meaningfull.

Having heard of this being done and the furor it caused I'd say there is a built in bias within Christian to keep God=Male.

There is, indeed -- but that is because these Christians interpret Genesis 3 to imply divinely ordained gender rôles with the man as the head of the family, and therefore, a male deity as the head of everything.

Now, in Pagan theology.. we see a world that has clear lines of male and female. We see them as balanced.. a male alone dies, a female alone dies, togther and sexually they create life..

I once agreed with this -- many years ago What then do you mean by male and by female?

The Gods seem to have a made a point on that. We also in most cases do not see a single central Diety that runs everything, nor do we think of that view as "a deeper level of understanding".

Ok, you consider the gender-dualism to run through everything?

As to sex being a sacred to the Goddess, depends on the Goddess.. but the divine female in all her aspects is most often (exceptions exist) a creative force. We see her as nurturing life because as the woman you marry or the mother who raised you that is the role they have taken.

Sorry, Durthorin, but this is too romantic for my taste. My mother didn't raise me, she sent me to an orphanage. And my ex-wife could hardly be said to as "nurturing life" -- I certainly had it best, when she was not around.

What when the romantic ideal does not fit in with the real world? What do Wiccans do then?

Every woman is an aspect of the Goddess as every man is a an aspect of the God.. sacred sex is therefore about an affirmation of life/creation and is always a gift from the Goddess.

Oh, dear! The problem with this view is that we get such things as that per definition only men commit sexual harassment, women are just being friendly. It this idea that in sexual matters, the woman is the giving party, and the man the receiving/stealing party that causes 98% of all problems in society. Has any Wiccan ever reflected on this?

It is two male/female joining to create life. When a male takes what is not offered the act ceases to be an affirmation of life and becomes an example of conquest, humilation and rape.

What can be given, can be sold. And what can be sold, can be stolen. At the root of it all is the idea of the woman as the giver.

It also leads to the akward idea that all men are insatiable sex-monsters. You cannot as a man say anything to a woman without she thinks that you want to have sex with her -- which is particularly confusing if you don't, but she does.


- FreezBee

[FreezBee]

Throwing rocks at goddesses now? = )

Yes, why not? It goves target practise all of it, doesn't it?

The Ugarit texts are interesting because there was a full pantheon of male and female dieties in canaan, and indeed it is probable that Yahweh had a consort, who is breifly refered to in the Bible.

Do you think of 'the queen of heaven' mentioned in Jeremiah? Possibly the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden could be an Asherah. I would think that Yahweh was considered to have had a consort -- it takes two to tango, after all.

But what happened to her? Apparently she was not popular with the Jerusalem priesthood, can you think of some reason?

Why they got rid of the female aspect of their religion I am not sure = )

Not really -- note that Israel and Judah often are mentioned as women, even adulterous women. The female aspect, however, is not the nurturing, but the one that needs to be nurtured, interestingly.

I think we should Consider gender...not as in sexuality so much as in the archetypes of male and female, the yin and yang of energy.

But is that concept of gender at all tied to biology. And if not, wouldn't it be better if we just skipped it?


- FreezBee

[Zeluvia]

Gender differences are most certainly supported by our biology.

Research is still on-going. For example, it was thought that women, who have a double XX chromosome, "turned off" the second X, making the genetic information there redundant. It has now been found that not only is all of the information not "turned off" but there is a huge variation between individual women as to how much of the "extra X" is being utilized.

Brain and cognitive research is also fascinating. Trying to seperate nature from nuture in neuroscience has always been one of the biggest hurdles, but it seems there ARE biological differences in brain formation, wiring and numbers of specific hormone receptors.

Male excellence at math versus female excellence at empathy actually does seem to have a biological basis.

It is from reading about some of these new research findings that I have arrived at my own conclusion, that women had to TEACH men how to talk, and we have regretted it ever since....


So, to postulate a MALE deity, with all the testorone laden attributes, is defininately to ingore a large part of the BIOLOGY of being Human.


I would go so far as to say one of the large appeals of Christinanity in the early years was an infusion of FEMALE properties.

Now understand I am not saying that all men and all women should live to be examples of the MALE property or the FEMALE property, I am saying that these differences DO exist biologically and humans are combinations of these, and I find the best representation of this idea in the philosophies that I have studied to be the idea of Yin and Yang.

[FreezBee]

Gender differences are most certainly supported by our biology.

To some extent, but to what extent? I am personally tired of reading in magazines and books about, how I am, because I am male, because I do not fit in unfortunately. I do not spend all my time watching football ('soccer', to you Americanos), nor do I stalk the streets searching for 'young appetizing love for sale', nor do I drive a BIG car, nor do I passionately carry a gun, snd so on, and so on.

Research is still on-going. For example, it was thought that women, who have a double XX chromosome, "turned off" the second X, making the genetic information there redundant. It has now been found that not only is all of the information not "turned off" but there is a huge variation between individual women as to how much of the "extra X" is being utilized.

Interesting. Any references?

Brain and cognitive research is also fascinating. Trying to seperate nature from nuture in neuroscience has always been one of the biggest hurdles, but it seems there ARE biological differences in brain formation, wiring and numbers of specific hormone receptors.

And you don't think that could be related to the different rôles for men and women in society -- their brain adapts to what it's used for.

Male excellence at math versus female excellence at empathy actually does seem to have a biological basis.

I am pretty bad at math, if you wanna know.

And spare me for that 'female excellence at empathy' -- women have NO empathy, NO empathy WHATSOEVER.

It is from reading about some of these new research findings that I have arrived at my own conclusion, that women had to TEACH men how to talk, and we have regretted it ever since....

But you needed men to invent the telephone so you girlies could keep contact with each other anywhere anytime, right?

So, to postulate a MALE deity, with all the testorone laden attributes, is defininately to ingore a large part of the BIOLOGY of being Human.

Since when was there a male deity excellent at math?

And which hormone, I wonder, makes people gender-focused?

I would go so far as to say one of the large appeals of Christinanity in the early years was an infusion of FEMALE properties.

No, even assuming that you are right, it would be female properties, as defined by society.

My life has taught me that women completely lack the properties that are supposedly female. Not that i claim to have them myself, but women brag about having properties they simply don't have, and that's worse!

Now understand I am not saying that all men and all women should live to be examples of the MALE property or the FEMALE property, I am saying that these differences DO exist biologically and humans are combinations of these, and I find the best representation of this idea in the philosophies that I have studied to be the idea of Yin and Yang.

Ehh, is this supposed to make sense? You claim that male properties and female properties exist, and that humans are combinations of these. But what then makes the properties male and female, if humans, independent of gender have both male properties and female properties?

You actually make my point, Zeluvia It is society that for some reason call some properties male and some other properties female, completely independent of the actual distribution of these properties.

Take that


- FreezBee

[Zeluvia]

you silly arse...go google "the differences between men and women" for the core biology that does seperate us, and then try to understand that the distribution of estrogen and testorone along with other hormones determines the masculinity and feminity of people.

after that, check between your legs for a clue = p

[Philosophickle]

Too gender-focused for what?

[Zeluvia]

Too gender-focused for what?

For Freez's misogyny = )

[Lazarus]

Now, in Pagan theology.. we see a world that has clear lines of male and female. We see them as balanced.. a male alone dies, a female alone dies, togther and sexually they create life.. The Gods seem to have a made a point on that. We also in most cases do not see a single central Diety that runs everything, nor do we think of that view as "a deeper level of understanding". As to sex being a sacred to the Goddess, depends on the Goddess.. but the divine female in all her aspects is most often (exceptions exist) a creative force. We see her as nurturing life because as the woman you marry or the mother who raised you that is the role they have taken. Every woman is an aspect of the Goddess as every man is a an aspect of the God.. sacred sex is therefore about an affirmation of life/creation and is always a gift from the Goddess. It is two male/female joining to create life. When a male takes what is not offered the act ceases to be an affirmation of life and becomes an example of conquest, humilation and rape.

Two questions:
1. When you say "sacred sex" do you mean sex within the context of a ritual of some sort or do you mean to say sex within the context of a loving relationship is sacred?
2. What does Wicca have to say about celebacy? Is there a tradition of celebacy within Wicca?
Just curious.

[FreezBee]

you silly arse...go google "the differences between men and women" for the core biology that does seperate us, and then try to understand that the distribution of estrogen and testorone along with other hormones determines the masculinity and feminity of people.

Been there, done that.

Top link: The Differences Between Men and Women

It says:

Relationships:

First of all, a man does not call a relationship a relationship - he refers to it as "that time when me and Suzie was doing it on a semi-regular basis". When a relationship ends, a woman will cry and pour her heart out to her girlfriends, and she will write a poem titled "All Men Are Idiots". Then she will get on with her life.

A man has a little more trouble letting go. Six months after the break-up, at 3:00 a.m. on a Saturday night, he will call and say, "I just wanted to let you know you ruined my life, and I'll never forgive you, and I hate you, and you're a total floozy. But I want you to know there's always a chance for us". This is known as the "I Hate You/I Love You" drunken phone call, that 99% of all men have made at least once. There are community colleges that offer courses to help men get over this need; alas, these classes rarely prove effective.

On the positive side: it is actually supposed to be humorous -- you'll just have to read it after having had 20 drinks ... with two hours.

after that, check between your legs for a clue = p

Zeluvia, I suppose that you here -- contrary to theologyweb decorum -- are referring to physical evidence for the difference between the two genders. But what I am trying to talk about is differences in behavior.

In my experience, women are stupid, men are stupid. Now, let us call stupidity a female property. Does that somehow turn all men non-stupid?


- FreezBee

[FreezBee]

Too gender-focused for what?

To be for real

No, what the thread-title refers to, is whether Wicca takes gender to be something fundamental. That is, is Wicca a biological reductionism?

For Freez's misogyny = )

I have no misogyny, I just happen to have evidence that women are overrated.


- FreezBee

[FreezBee]

Two questions:
1. When you say "sacred sex" do you mean sex within the context of a ritual of some sort or do you mean to say sex within the context of a loving relationship is sacred?
2. What does Wicca have to say about celebacy? Is there a tradition of celebacy within Wicca?
Just curious.

Hi Lazarus;

Really good questions

I'd like to know the answers as well, so don't keep yourself back from answering, dear Wiccans.


- FreezBee

[Zeluvia]

my dearest FreezBee....

differences in biology lead to differences in behavior.

and not just for Men and Women....

Remember the case of the XXY chromosomes? For some reason, men with XXY chromosomes were found to be a higher preponderance of prision populations.

And homosexuality? Another biological based behavior.

I run on Estrogen, amongst other things = ).....you run on testorone....but each of us is mix of levels of both....

I think our biology influences our behavior far more than we admit or understand, and I think some of the "older" balanced religions with male and female aspects took into account the observable behavior differences between the Male principle, and the Female principle.