Spiritual Feminism

[seabeyond]

Every person experiences her life singly, as the one and only center of that life. The preciousness of one’s life lies precisely in the fact that it is the only life one has. Moreover, all human beings desire the free exercise of their wills, minds, and faculties. When a person is treated as if she were an object, a means towards an end not her own, this is perceived as unjust at some level of consciousness, because it is essentially a lie, a denial of her reality as self. Even if she is so thoroughly socialized that there is no conscious awareness of injustice, the denial of self will exact a psychological price. The suppression of truth at such a fundamental level cannot be maintained without destructive effects. In the long view, this sums up the history of the subjection of women by men. Engels seemed to hint that the domestication of animals led to the herdsman’s application of the same idea of ownership and control to women, and later to other men. This is of course speculation—the origins of the problem are murky. The outcome, however, is clear. Women were eventually made the slaves of men. The patriarchal social order limited women to the roles of sexual mates, mothers, and domestic laborers. Slavery as it developed in the ancient world was not much different in principle from what already existed in the family structure.

The system was powerful and all-pervading, so embedded in the social order that most people couldn’t even see it. In addition to being firmly established through law and custom, women’s “role” was deeply internalized and transmitted from parents to children for thousands of years. The limitations of patriarchal culture made it almost impossible for anyone, male or female, to see beyond it, until the intellectual rebellion of the 17th century, and the subsequent gradual widening of education in society, awakened the long-dormant thirst for freedom. But even before any of this, from the most ancient times, lack of freedom was perceived at a subconscious level as painful and unjust, and there were sporadic instinctual rebellions, sometimes only suppressed by the cruelest measures. The act of force, the establishment of patriarchy through domination, far preceded the various reasons and justifications offered for male supremacy. Nevertheless, the anti-feminist arguments lead us to the awareness of certain assumptions about men and women. The basic assumption, as Stanton so shrewdly divined, is that selfhood is a prerogative of the patriarch, and that women are meant to serve the patriarch as a means towards his ends. That’s what objectification ultimately means, in the sexual and every other sense: the subservience of the female self to a power outside of her—in effect, the denial of any absolute value to her self.

A secondary assumption, following from the basic one, is that men are superior to women. The idea of superiority arises, as in the debates on slavery, from the need to justify the already existing power structure. A lot of words have been spent arguing the merits of either side of this question. After modern feminist gains, the superiority idea has been supplanted for the most part by the notion of essential difference. In other words, neither is superior; it’s just that men are designed to do certain things and women to do other things, and these things shouldn’t be mixed. Of course it’s really just a new version of the old idea: the things men are designed to do turn out to involve the exercise of their wills, minds, and faculties; while women are romantic nurturers and mothers.

*

Behind the anti-feminist argument, grown softer and subtler and more ingratiating in the modern age, stands the unacknowledged shadow of slavery. It still survives undisguised in the poorer nations. It is important to remember that the argument always leads to the same place. Male supremacy, in the end, is founded on force. Rape is not an aberration, but a primary symptom of the central problem of human society. You’ll notice that rape always accompanies war; it’s an essential expression of it. Domination, the power principle, is the illusion that an inviolable, free, solitary self can be transformed into a mere object, sacrificed on the altar of authority. This is the tragedy of human history, and patriarchy is at its very core. Feminism is the awakening insight, the recognition of freedom as an absolute and inherent value in the self. Its significance embraces the political, social, and cultural realms—it is ultimately a spiritual liberation.

http://cdashiell.blogspot.com/2009/03/spiritual-feminism.html


Spiritual Feminism

“Spiritual feminism is often referred to as “spiritual ecofeminism” or “myth feminism.” According to “The Dictionary of Feminist Theory” by Maggie Humm, this branch of feminism “emphasizes the spiritual dimension as being as, or more, important than material rights to women’s happiness” (274). In other words, spiritual feminism seeks to empower women spiritually, often by returning to pre-Abrahamic religions, like Native American and Wiccan spirituality. The goddess as an alternative spiritual figure for women is a common theme in spiritual ecofeminist theory, though it is obviously more complex; in a sense, it is also partly a work of reconstructing women’s history.”

“Feminist theology is a movement found in several religions, including Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, and New Thought, to reconsider the traditions, practices, scriptures, and theologies of those religions from a feminist perspective. Some of the goals of feminist theology include increasing the role of women among the clergy and religious authorities, reinterpreting male-dominated imagery and language about God, determining women’s place in relation to career and motherhood, and studying images of women in the religion’s sacred texts and matriarchal religion.

Feminists have attempted to counter perceptions of women as morally or spiritually inferior to men; as a source of sexual temptation; as dedicated to childbearing, their homes, and husbands; and as having a lesser role in religious ritual or leadership because of such inferiority or dedication.”

http://readerwoman.wordpress.com/spiritual-feminism/

[Tumbulu]

1. so many interesting things to discuss here seabeyond- wonderful!

I keep around 90 ewes as well as ~35 chickens for 12 years now.

The thing is that being around livestock the deal is that the female is the viable unit. No one says they keep sheep (unless they have just a few). Those who are in the business of producing livestock refer to the number of heifers or ewes or cows. The males are just extra trouble and are generally made into meat. One ram per 40 ewes is all that one needs. I don't know the bull/cow ration, but not too many either. 98% of the males born are sold to be made into meat (unless one is raising sheep for wool and then the castrated males are valuable- as they do not fight or give birth [creating a break in the wool] along with horses where geldings are considered superior to mares). With chickens, too many roosters hurt the hens. Maybe 1 rooster to 8-12 hens is OK, but no more.

So, my feeling is that Engels got it wrong. I think that the domestication of livestock led to something more complex than patriarchy. I think that when prehumans and wolves co evolved to become humans and dogs that the social system of the wolves were adopted by the humans. This system has as it's head the alpha female with her mate and then the others in the group under them with the females equal to or slightly superior to the males. Other predators exhibit these types of social systems and some herbivores, such as horses do as well. It is the lead mare that is in charge of the herd, not the stallion as is the hollywood myth.

I wonder if it was the horror of the knowledge that the primary use for males of most all domesticated animals was for meat production that contributed to the overreaction that I see patriarchy to be.

On a farm it is all too clear what happens to most male animals, and I think about the fairly tales - Hansel and Grettel ....the fattening of the little boy to be made into meat....somehow captures the discomfort of feeding the domestic livestock up so that they can be eaten. It is not easy for anyone to do, killing and eating animals that one lives with and often are fond of. In fact it is so awful that it is my theory that this is why we came up with religions at all. To have some way to comfort ourselves about this practice which seems very much like cannibalism, actually.

I have read that as civilization developed into the city/state model that ideas of spiritual beings began to change and of course this follows the religions going from a Goddess to many gods and goddesses to one male God......so that time period well after initial domestication of livestock is when this social change (patriarchy) took root.

[seabeyond]

2. wow

listen to you. and isnt all that interesting. we are going to have to delve into this more. i never just buy what an "expert" says. not when common sense and logic may lead elsewhere. very interesting. thanks.