"Why Women Need the Goddess"

[bloom]

This could be titled "Why People Need the Goddess" - but at any rate - it's worth thinking about. I am not about to start "believing" that there actually is a Goddess - but as the article mentions - it's the symbolism that counts. And we are affected by the symbolism of the male God whether we "think" about it (consciously) or not.

A lot of people deny it and say that God is a neutral term. I don't buy it. Just like the evangelical who made it very clear to his congregation that he was endorsing God, the Father of Creation and NOT Mother Nature (in Moyers "God is Green" show) - the whole Christian (and Jewish and Muslim) religions are based on the power of men over women. Sometimes it's more obvious than others. Some groups emphasize it more than others. But it's still there nonetheless.

It's there in the verses that say "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord, 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church" Ephesians 5 & "But I-do-not-allow for-a-woman to-teach nor to-be-in-a-position-of-authority over-a-man, but to be in silence". (1 Timothy 2:12-15)

And these sorts of verses continue to be read from pulpits all over the world. If all churches denounced them and stopped reading them - it might give some credibility to the argument that they are not applicable nowadays. But that is not the case in most instances.

Plus the whole patriarchy mindset is all re-emphasized with the Male prophet/saviours/sons of "God" - not to mention that people must be "re-born" - since heaven knows that it's not enough to be born once :sarcasm: (by a woman, of course).

But even if you don't actively believe in any of that (Christianity, etc.) - as this essay mentions - we live in this culture that is dominated by this type of believing and thinking - and it affects us whether we confront these ideas or not. It's one thing to say that you "think" this or that (that you are atheist or whatever) - it's another thing to affect the stored conceptions in your subconscious mind.

Why Women Need the Goddess
by Carol P. Christ

At the close of Ntosake Shange's stupendously successful Broadway play for colored girls who have considered suicide when the rainbow is enuf, a tall beautiful black woman rises from despair to cry out, "I found God in myself and I loved her fiercely." Her discovery is echoed by women around the country who meet spontaneously in small groups on full moons, solstices, and equinoxes to celebrate the Goddess as symbol of life and death powers and waxing and waning energies in the universe and in themselves....

What are the political and psychological effects of this fierce new love of the divine in themselves for women whose spiritual experience has been focused by the male God of Judaism and Christianity? Is the spiritual dimension of feminism a passing diversion, an escape from difficult but necessary political work? Or does the emergence of the symbol of Goddess among women have significant political and psychological ramifications for the feminist movement?

To answer this question, we must first understand the importance of religious symbols and rituals in human life and consider the effect of male symbolism of God on women. According to anthropologist Clifford Geertz, religious symbols shape a cultural ethos, defining the deepest values of a society and the persons in it. "Religion," Geertz writes, " is a system of symbols which act to produce powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations"4 in the people of a given culture. A "mood" for Geertz is a psychological attitude such as awe, trust, and respect, while a "motivation" is the social and political trajectory created by a mood that transforms mythos into ethos, symbol system into social and political reality. Symbols have both psychological and political effects, because they create their inner conditions (deep-seated attitudes and feelings) that lead people to feel comfortable with or to accept social and political arrangements that correspond to the symbol system.

Because religion has such a compelling hold on the deep psyches of so many people, feminists cannot afford to leave it in the hands of the fathers. Even people who no longer "believe in God" or participate in the institutional structure of patriarchal religion still may not be free of the power of the symbolism of God the Father. A symbol's effect does not depend on rational assent, for a symbol also functions on levels of the psyche other than the rational. Religion fulfills deep psychic needs by providing symbols and rituals that enable people to cope with crisis situations in human life (death, evil, suffering) and to pass through life's important transitions (birth, sexuality, death). Even people who consider themselves completely secularized will often find themselves sitting in a church or synagogue when a friend or relative gets married or when a parent or friend has died. The symbols associated with these important rituals cannot fail to affect the deep or unconscious structures of the mind of even a person who has rejected these symbolisms on a conscious level especially if a person is under stress. The reason for the continuing effects of religious symbols is that the mind abhors a vacuum. Symbol systems cannot simply be rejected; they must be replaced. Where there is no replacement, the mind will revert to familiar structures at times of crisis, bafflement, or defeat...

http://www.goddessariadne.org/whywomenneedthegoddess.htm

[niyad]

1. thank you so much for sharing this. the patriarchal, abrahamic

belief systems are deadly for women, in all their variants.

[buff2]

2. LOL........I thought your thread was about Judy Tununa

The comedian who calls herself "the goddess". LOL

[niyad]

7. do you mean judy tenuda?

[grizmaster]

3. I see no need for any fictional cloud being

Why do we need ritual symbols of the life around us, when we are surrounded by the real thing?

[bloom]

5. It's a cultural thing

In some cultures - like India - there are symbolic male/female gods. The destroyer and the creator.

The symbolic God of our culture is supposed to be the creator/destroyer in one. Some may not admit that they destroyer is part of it - but look at how people pray to "Him" to help in War - God Bless America and all that. It could be even argued that we have the Destroyer God symbol with no accompanying Creator symbol. I think it's bad for the culture.

Sure you can look at life and think about the wonders of life and maybe if there were not any cultural symbols encouraging people to be destructive and greedy - it would not make any difference (and I would say that not ALL Bible verses encourage that - but look at the overall culture). But the fact is that we do have those symbols - whether we like it not - and whether we worship them or not.

I think we need a positive, female symbol for balance. The positive symbol for life and wisdom has been demonized for too long.

[grizmaster]

9. why must the symbol for life & wisdom be female? (or male for that matter)

I'm all for keeping things positive and for reinforcing positive conceptions. I just think projecting the human figure as some all-encompassing image leads to adding BS whether it be female or male.

[bloom]

12. You may or may not know

that the serpent (like the one that showed up in "Eden") represented "wisdom". Many people think that Eve did as well. And whole thing about the tree of knowledge that Eve ate from. All symbolic, of course, and all relevant to our society and how it treats women, snakes, and wisdom.

I can see where men would be part of wisdom also. I'll let them. :) Of course - men can only get there when they are ready to stop being destructive and misogynistic.

[grizmaster]

13. that tree of knowledge was a tricky deal

How were they to know that knowledge without wisdom comes to naught BEFORE eating the fruit?


Kinda like getting on the internet for the first time and discovering that no matter how much info there is available, you still need to have good judgement to discern any value from it.


And thanks for letting me in on the wisdom. Neither male nor female will find real wisdom without recognizing the best (and worst) in both of us. :grouphug:

[TallahasseeGrannie]

16. What about Mary?

I see her as a goddess mother figure. The eternal mother who must sacrifice her child, as we all do when we turn them loose on the world. Our perfect creations and the world gobbles them right up.

[bloom]

17. I realize that for some people

Mary serves as that surrogate Goddess symbol. The Catholic Church has more Mary rituals (the assumption and all) than most churches. Of course the Catholic Church does not allow women priests, either. So the message seems to be - you can have virgin mother figure - just don't expect to have any power or say-so about anything.


I was in an Episcopal church with a friend a couple months ago. I hadn't been in a church in awhile. The woman minister read the verses about women submitting to their husbands along with every other Episcopal church (it was my impression that the verses to be read were set by some higher authority).

There were also the verses about throwing over the old religions (in the OT) - because they were about what people didn't have (due to bad crops or whatever) - and GOD was about abundance. It seemed like the whole service was about getting rid of the Goddess (and nature) symbolism and embracing male power and authority. The woman preacher seemed to try to temper the message - but there was only so much she could do - and to some extent she bought into it all, anyway.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

19. Choice of Scripture readings

The Catholics and the mainstream Protestants are on a three-year cycle of readings in which they read through the entire four Gospels and selections from the Hebrew Scriptures and the letters of the Apostles (3 readings per day).

Unlike the fundies, whose preachers preach on whatever they feel like, we have to deal with the difficult passages.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

23. It's the oldest struggle in the world

the male and the female.

The destructive and the creative.

[greyl]

18. No, Eve is "life". Adam is "man"(humanity) . nt

[bloom]

21. That is the simplified view

Also patriarchal in effect. And it does not address the meaning of the symbolisms. The story - as is seen in the Bible is the patriarchal version anyway. And most of the interpretations that are commonly heard are the standard patriarchal ones that ignore what had been going on in the world when the story was written down - and why it was written as it was - and the intended future effect.

See Adam, Eve, and the Serpent by Pagels for more interpretations as well as The Chalice and and Blade by Eisler and When God Was a Woman by Stone.

Here is a section of an online essay that mentions the Adam/earth/humanity thing (as a female interpretation) as well as some of the serpent stuff...


...Ancient peoples did not understand the serpent as some deceitful embodiment of evil. On the contrary, the serpent was, and in some cultures still is, regarded as the source of great wisdom, for the serpent can shed its skin and go on living. Like the butterfly which bursts out of its own chrysalis to new life, the serpent was often regarded as a symbol of immortality. And more, perhaps because of this intimation of new life, the serpent was frequently regarded in the ancient world as the messenger from the great Goddess and the guardian of her sacred precincts (see Eliade, Patterns 164-74; Sinha 45, 56).

If this is the symbolism intended, the tale of the Garden of Eden takes on radically new dimensions. The essential plot can be understood not as a struggle between God and the Devil, but as a conflict involving the dynamic, royal, masculine God of the heavens and the primordial Mother Goddess who for millennia had been worshiped as the Mistress of the earth. To be sure, the story is told from the point of view of the former. The serpent is reduced to being the subtlest of the creatures which the Lord God had made. The Goddess is not even mentioned by name, though she is there as the tree of life, for that is how she was so often depicted among the ancient Canaanites. Indeed, because she was represented in tree form, it is not surprising that Yahweh declared that the tree and its fruit were taboo. Usually Asherah was represented by a pole. Archaeologists have discovered a pre-Mosaic casting mould which pictured the Goddess as a tree with knobby knees and body, rooted in the earth. She is also sometimes pictured as a woman offering her breasts to the world for sustenance.

The Goddess was not a newcomer to human history. Archaeologists have discovered on the Golan Heights an image of her which can be dated to more than 220,000 years ago! From a human point of view, Yahweh, and all the other, heavenly Gods like him, are far more recent historically. Her predominance in earlier forms of the story may well be mirrored by the fact that the very name Adam is cognate with adamah, earth. In other words, humanity was originally hers.

Indeed, the Hebrew word Adam can be translated as simply "human." Adam, as originally created, contained within "him" both male and female. Therefore, it is appropriate to speak of the man and the woman (ish and ishshah), but not Adam and Eve, in the garden. The male only claims to be the whole of Adam and therefore calls his wife Chawwah (in Greek, Eve) after they have been driven out of the garden.

Yahweh's triumph over the Goddess, which this tale describes from his point of view, marked a radical transformation of society, a transformation which has continued virtually to this day. (In many respects, this victory is reminiscent of Apollo's victory over the Pythian serpent Goddess at Delphi in Greece.) When Adam is divided into male and female, the story makes clear, the first stage of human life was matriarchy, for the male "left his father and mother to cleave unto his wife" (Gen. 2.24). In a patriarchal society, which the victory of Yahweh brings, the direction is reversed. The woman goes to live in the man's home. It is also obvious that before the "fall" the woman (later to be called Eve) takes the leading role, reasoning about her options and, in effect, deciding what the couple will do. Only after Yahweh steps in does the male claim rule over the female by naming her...."

http://southerncrossreview.org/38/williams.htm

[greyl]

31. No, not simplified. Accurate. To the point. True.

Millenia after the fact, anyone can expound to their hearts content upon the symbolism of words written, but complexity doesn't equal accuracy at all. Anthropologists don't favor the most complex and wordy explanation, they favor the most sensible. The one that makes the most sense.

The quote you provided is masturbatory and resentful feminism at its most unwittingly slavish worst. It's colored by the yearning perspective of a man needing approval of women who has bought into the conventional, yet false, patriarchal reading of the story of The Fall. It's damn obvious that Jay Williams isn't trying to make sense of the Bible, as much as he is using conventional readings of the Bible as a springboard to gain the favor of New Age feminists.

When it was written, Adam meant humanity, and Eve meant Life.

This quote strokes a softer line than I:

The foundation thinkers of our culture very naturally assumed that humans had been exactly like them from the beginning, that humans had been born as agriculturalists and civilization-builders. Since they could estimate when the birth of civilization occurred, they saw no reason to doubt that the birth of humanity occurred at the same time -- in other words, just a few thousand years before. If they'd known the truth, that humanity was born some three million years ago, their way of thinking would have of necessity been very different, and the works they produced would have been similarly different.

When the truth finally began to emerge in the nineteenth century, the descendants of these foundation thinkers -- philosophers and theologians -- should have felt powerfully impelled to reexamine those foundations, but they didn't. They weren't even slightly interested in the matter. They went on exactly as before, thinking and writing as if nothing had changed, as if humanity had been born just a few thousand years ago. I began to be struck by this oddity in my middle twenties, back in the 1960s, and I began to reexamine those foundations on my own.

Historians naturally had to fall in with the revelation that humans weren't born agriculturalists and civilization-builders. So instead of perceiving agriculture as being innate to us (as previous generations had), they began to see it as a fairly recent innovation. The concept of the Agricultural Revolution was born. They knew where and when it began -- about 10,000 years ago in the Fertile Crescent now encompassed by Iraq. Being historians rather than theologians or biblical scholars, it was not their business to note that Genesis also has a story about the beginning of agriculture -- set in the misty past, near the beginning of time, in the same general region. It was similarly not the business of biblical scholars to note this fact or to attempt to connect the two.

I made it my business. I began with the assumption that the historians' account and the account in Genesis both referred to the same event. The difference between them was that the historians viewed the event as a great step forward for humanity, while the authors of Genesis viewed it as a punishment and a curse for humanity. This punishment and curse resulted from the acquisition of "the knowledge of good and evil." Theologians and biblical scholars really had no tools to use to figure out what was so wrong about having the knowledge of good and evil. Some speculated that knowing good and evil is a metaphor for losing your innocence; for them, Adam and Eve lost their innocence by losing their innocence, and having lost their innocence no longer belonged in the Garden of Eden and so were driven out to live by the sweat of their brows -- as agriculturalists.

Anthropologists know all about people who live the way Adam and Eve lived before the Fall. They're hunter-gatherers. But, being anthropologists rather than theologians or biblical scholars, it was not their business to consider the possibility that the story of Adam and Eve was the story of the transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture in the Fertile Crescent -- and of course it wasn't the business of theologians or biblical scholars either.

I made it my business. I learned, for example, that missionaries reported that, like Adam and Eve before the Fall, their aboriginal clients didn't have the knowledge of good and evil. It was something that had to be taught to them, and they conceived it to be their duty to do so (despite the fact that God had expressly forbidden this knowledge to Adam and Eve). To us the forms good/evil and right/wrong seem almost innate to the human mind; they aren't; they're special to our culture (though that's a different story).

But I learned a great deal more than that. I learned to see things from the hunter-gather/aboriginal/Leaver point of view. I learned, for example, that the subjugation and slaughter of the aboriginal peoples of the New World bore an uncanny resemblance to the story of Cain and Abel. Cain the tiller of the soil "watered his fields with the blood" of Abel the herder (a metaphorical way of saying that he killed Abel in order to gain the territory he wanted to farm). This is of course exactly what we did on coming to the new world. All our fields were watered with the blood of hundreds of thousands (perhaps even millions) of hunting-gathering Abels.

The authors of the story of the Fall were Semites -- the ancestors of the Hebrews who claimed the story as their heritage. But the agricultural revolution didn't begin among the Semites, it began among their neighbors to the north, the Caucasians. So the Fall was not something that happened to THEM. I formed a theory -- like all theories, an explanation to be judged on the basis of how well it explains the facts it sets out to explain. My theory was this: Like Cain (and us), the Caucasians began to encroach on the territory of their neighbors -- the Semites being their neighbors to the south. They began to water their fields with the blood of the Semites.

The Semites (the theory continues) needed some sort of explanation for this behavior on the part of their neighbors to the north. Their neighbors were acting as if they were the gods of the world, as if they had the right to decide what and who shall live here and what and who shall not. They must believe, therefore, that they have the very knowledge the gods use to rule the world. And what is that knowledge? It's the knowledge of good and evil, because whatever the gods do, it's good for one but evil for another. It's impossible for it to be otherwise. Their neighbors were acting as if they ate at the gods' own tree of wisdom, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But embracing this knowledge carried its own penalty. Instead of living the easy and carefree life they formerly enjoyed, they were now living by the sweat of their brows as tillers of the field. Eating at the gods' tree of wisdom is assuredly going to carry a curse, and the authors of the story felt sure that this curse would be the death of man (Adam, in Hebrew).

Many readers of ISHMAEL (including clergy of all faiths, seminarians, and even biblical scholars) have written to me to confess that my theory makes more sense than any other they've seen. But I repeat that it is "just" a theory -- and will never be proven as a fact. The only way to judge it is to ask: Does it make sense of the facts that are known -- and does it make more sense than any OTHER theory?
http://www.ishmael.org/Interaction/QandA/Detail.CFM?Record=619

[okasha]

34. The archaeology does not bear this out.

On the transition of cultures in ancient Israel/Palestine, see The Bible Unearthed, by Silverman and Finkelstein. On the Yahwist attempt to obliterate the Mother Goddess, see William Deaver's Did God Have a Wife?

[greyl]

92. Show me.

I haven't read the books you mention, but I've read about them. As yet, I'm not aware of what they, or anyone, may have said that provides archaelogical evidence contrary to my post.

Can you give more details to support your reply?

[TRYPHO]

93. And the lack of proof cannot be taken as proof either!

Millenia after the fact, anyone can expound to their hearts content upon the symbolism of words written, but complexity doesn't equal accuracy at all. Anthropologists don't favor the most complex and wordy explanation, they favor the most sensible. The one that makes the most sense.

-->Which is not supposed to imply that the most sensible IS the correct explanation.

When it was written, Adam meant humanity, and Eve meant Life.
--> Close. I read Adam as Geb, the diety for earth and Eve as Nut, the deity for heaven, probably from the Heliopolitan Creation Myth since the more local Babylonian Creation Myth doesn't overlap as well.

The authors of the story of the Fall were Semites -- the ancestors of the Hebrews who claimed the story as their heritage. But the agricultural revolution didn't begin among the Semites, it began among their neighbors to the north, the Caucasians.

--> Hmmm. Evidence please?


Many readers of ISHMAEL (including clergy of all faiths, seminarians, and even biblical scholars) have written to me to confess that my theory makes more sense than any other they've seen. But I repeat that it is "just" a theory -- and will never be proven as a fact. The only way to judge it is to ask: Does it make sense of the facts that are known -- and does it make more sense than any OTHER theory?

--> Not unless you offer some facts.

TRYPHO

[greyl]

94. I'm not sure exactly what you're questioning, but here are some facts.

Yes, almost all the names of people and places in Genesis are symbolic, often for humorous or sarcastic, as well as historical, purposes in the story. The names are an integral part of the story -- as they often are in the stories of all oral, relational cultures.

The names are part of the drama, part of the meaning of the story. This is not at all remarkable, but is a common feature of Semitic culture, as well as most non-western peoples of the world.

The Human
Thus Adam is the Hebrew word for "Human" -- "God created the Human..., he created them male and female" (Gen. 1:27). Then the Hebrew words for male person (man) and female person (woman) are used for the two individuals. Even these words form a poetic pair, as they would be in many languages that note gender in their word forms: ish-man, isha-woman.

The Life
The name of the female is Hawa, the Hebrew word for Life. Thus in the oral, poetic beauty of the story, captured in writing to hand down for the generations, we are told Human married Life and they had children. Yes, this powerful testimonial symbolism to God's plan is very difficult to adequately translate into other languages.

Traditional English translators have done us a great disservice, by transliterating the words/names, instead of translating their full, rich meaning to bring out the dynamic story in the names of people and places!
http://orvillejenkins.com/languages/hebreworiginal.html

http://www.lhhpaleo.religionstatistics.net/LHH%20neolithic.html
http://www.jerusalemites.org/jerusalem/cultural_dimensions/2.htm
http://bahai-library.com/?file=stockman_notes_judaism
http://www.ethnologue.com/family_index.asp
http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstracts-jews.html

[TRYPHO]

105. I'm NOT about to start a flame war but..

The Life
The name of the female is Hawa, the Hebrew word for Life.
--> OK, this tells me you don't know anything. ANYONE who reads Hebrew would pronounce it CHAVVA, even my 10 year old daughter agrees with me :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve
Shows its spelt Chet Vav Hay, clear as daylight. You'd have to be a heathen to spell it hawwa.

Traditional English translators have done us a great disservice
--> and apparently still do

As for your links to websites - I don't wish to upset you so I wont comment on them, knowing that anyone who took the time to look at them would quickly realise (if they have a modicum of knowledge) that they are not exactly professional.

You have some serious ignorance And/or bias seeping through my friend.

TRYPHO

[okasha]

35. On the symbolism of the serpent,

it's worth noting that one of the objects King Josiah tossed out of the Jerusalem Temple in the course of his establisment of Yahwist monotheism was the image of a serpent, called Nehushtan. This image was evidently an object of veneration, as were the tree-shrines and representations of Asherah "on every high hill and under every green tree." At the time the Genesis creation myth attained its present form, archaeology shows both that there was in fact widespread veneration of the Goddess in Israel and Judah and that there was an effort to obliterate it.

Given an extensive Egyptian presence in Palestine in the Late Bronze Age/Early Iron I and Nehushtan's original association with Moses, it's tempting to see her as a form of the goddess Wadjet surviving and adopted into the local culture.

[Fovea]

6. Why do we speak when pointing and grunting might suffice?

Because we are symbol-minded.
Laurie Anderson said, 'Language is a virus from outer space- and hearing your name is better than seeing your face."

Our individual mythos may have a different back story than our neighbor's, but we all have a story in which we are the protagonist-- and sometimes our nemesis is larger than our neighbor.

It is good to ask for help from something greater than yourself, when your nemesis is also greater than yourself. Even if that something is the ability of one's species to do the right thing in critical moments. Having simply stated to the universe that you are counting on it to still be there when you are gone might be enough for someone. But that is still faith reaching out to a divine spark... even if only for the most abstract of hopes.

[grizmaster]

8. I love Laurie Anderson (but I'd still rather see your face)

Being an erstwhile student of semiotics I see your point. But I see no need to project some desire for the universe to contain some sort of uber parent.

As to faith reaching out for a divine spark, I've never seen anything that makes me think that is more than wishful self-deception.

All that said, I have no problem with people using whatever trickery they feel necessary to make sense of their lives.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

15. We do like ritual, don't we?

I guess it encapsulates or simplifies what we see about us. Maybe it satisfies a compulsion, a human need. Personally I am moved by all ritual, even those I don't understand.

[Fovea]

4. The strength of Polytheism

is that it reveals the divine in many aspects.
It's adherents may still be intolerant, but they do so knowing that they insult their connection with the divine by doing so.

I am neither a god or goddess worshiper, because I feel that to reduce the divine, and its essentials richness, to one thing, is to embrace grayness over the world of light and color. I cannot find the food that I would eat for the rest of my life, refusing all others. Further, no single food is complete- nor is any single truth.

[grizmaster]

10. very powerfully put

Is this your own, or borrowed from somewhere? Either way, I can't remember seeing it put in better words.


"I am neither a god or goddess worshiper, because I feel that to reduce the divine, and its essentials richness, to one thing, is to embrace grayness over the world of light and color. I cannot find the food that I would eat for the rest of my life, refusing all others. Further, no single food is complete- nor is any single truth."

[Fovea]

24. This is what I have come to

in 30+ years as a Wiccan Priest.

[bloom]

11. polytheism, etc.

I was just noticing a conversation on TV where someone mentioned the idea of people and animals being reversed - where people had the power of animals and vice versa and the animals put the people on trial - sort of like the Nuremberg trials. You can imagine what that might be like.

It reminded of some religions where animals are used to teach concepts. It gives animals more power than they would have otherwise - to do so.

The symbolism is useful in giving things context - also for looking at things from different points of view.


I think that Universalism is a good way to look at things, as well. When I first started looking into Universalism - it still seemed to have the flavor of monotheism - just embracing all monotheistic (and patriarchal) religions. The idea being that you could be monotheistic (and patriarchal) and embrace most religions and be connected in that way to most people of the world.

I think nowadays more people think about Nature as a force as well as women sharing in everything that is divine. I think the culture has a long way to go, however.

[Fovea]

25. I agree

We still have a long way to go.

But I think we still have a chance, as well.

[bloom]

14. In case you missed it:

"The New York Times blames the patriarchy"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=229x4937

[Chulanowa]

20. Well, that's all well and good...

Unfortunately I have witnessed firsthand that goddess-worshipers can be every inch as deranged, discriminatory, and awful as any patriarch's. This is a predictable backlash against exactly what you describe - but that doesn't make it any more right. Too often I have seen people, not just women, use goddess worship as a method of "getting even" on a spiritual level. One of the main turn-offs of Wicca for me was the imbalance between male and female deity - all too often the male aspect was portrayed as an optional and expendable sperm factory for the all-powerful female; a male Mary to a female Yahweh.

Focus on one at the expense of the other is unhealthy, no matter which you choose.

[bloom]

22. From what I've noticed

Wicca and paganism as it is - is not something that I can embrace. I don't rule it out entirely, though - there could be groups that I would be comfortable with - there is not just one way of thinking. Just like anything.

I take some of the ideas and incorporate them into my philosophy and there are some good inspirations as far as being connected with nature.

As far as people who are religious - I think I have more in common with people who acknowledge the Goddess ideal than I do with others. And if there is a backlash (against the male power structure) - I'm not surprised (part of recreation would necessarily involve the destruction of the current outlook). I would say that to have a peace-based philosophy - all genders need to be included.

[Evoman]

26. Plain ol' atheism just seems easier, lol.

All this talk about gods and goddesses....like something so complex as god is even gender based. What women should do, instead of embracing this goddess character, is reject religion altogether. I'm surprised they haven't...so much abuse from this patriarchial system. Veils, burkas, forced virginity, mutilation...women need to reject god, and reject men who want to enforce religion.

Lol..and then hook up with an atheist. Because it had been scientifically proven that atheists are the best lovers on the planet.

(I'm just joking here..don't flame me!).

[bloom]

27. A lot of people

who like the concept of the Goddess - and who have rituals around the idea - consider themselves to be atheists. And on issues that concern atheists - are on that side of things.

Just because the patriarchal religions can be bad for women does not mean that Goddess-centered religions or philosophies are. It's not the Goddess-centered religions and philosophies that are pushing "Veils, burkas, forced virginity, mutilation".

The idea is that it is easier to replace a negative thing with a positive thing instead of just getting rid of the negative thing and having nothing.

I can see where men wouldn't necessarily get this idea. After all - men are the beneficiaries of the patriarchy whether they embrace the patriarchal religions or not.


I'm not ready to go along with everything that some of the Goddess people are advocating - like having sex in the streets (actually - I think that was a man who was advocating that at the Wiccan site I was looking at) - but I think that a symbolic Goddess-based-Mother-Nature-loving religion or philosophy is what this planet needs these days. I'm glad to see more people coming around to this.

[Evoman]

28. I agree with this

"I can see where men wouldn't necessarily get this idea. After all - men are the beneficiaries of the patriarchy whether they embrace the patriarchal religions or not."

I would never deny that most societies, ours included, in patriarichal. Or that I, as a man, have benifited from it. To be honest, replacing the man god, with a woman god, would probably not be a bad idea, in principle.

In practice, your just asking for trouble. Replacement of gods IS NOT necessarily easier...its a whole lot bloodier, to be honest. The last thing we need, imo, is somekind of religious war between god and goddess religiions. Your assuming that any meaningful replacement could occur without violence, and I just don't believe it. I just don't find the increase in goddess worship that significant...as of now, it seems more reactionary, than sincere and more of a fad, than a true religion. Hopefully, however, that reactionary religious behaviour by feminists will raise consciousness about the male=dominated god (as if god has a gender), and that IS a very important task.

[bloom]

29. I agree that it is more confrontational.

To have people not believe in God - or not THINK that there is a God - or not think about it at all - would far easier for the strong patriarchal believers to accept than the idea that God could or should be a woman - or that there could or should be dual male/female Gods - or a variety of Gods/Goddesses to symbolize this and that.

I think that is why I like it - it presents more of a challenge to the power structure. And I like the symbolism. And I like the aspects that put people more in touch with the cycles of the earth and moon.

I am also inspired by the knowing of alternative ways of seeing the world that were mostly stamped out - and it's interesting to uncover them and relearn them. It's practically a subversive activity. :)

[Evoman]

30. Fine, fine...your right.

But after the acapocalypse resulting from religious confrontation, THEN maybe we could start over with a godless society on the shattered remains of the planet ;)

[beam me up scottie]

32. The "idea" that we need to replace one religion with another is stupid and

indicative of the mindset of someone who bought into the "evil" atheism propaganda.

Instead of helping the fundamentalists/dominionists in their effort to vilify atheism (like calling it a "negative":eyes: ), the born to be gullible people should be fighting the stereotypes they propagate.

[Chulanowa]

33. I prefer gender-neutral divinity

Or, better yet, gender-equal divinity. Hermaphroditic deities really do fill the gap, I feel.

I want to restate that emphasizing one sex over another as a matter of religion is negative, no matter what sex it is. Male and female are spiritual equals. Do you think that tacking an "-ess" onto the concept of "God" would make things work better? Not at all. A female-only priesthood perhaps? It would fall into the same corruption and evil as a male-dominated religion, because women can be assholes just like men.

But what the heck do I know. I figure it's good enough for me to acknowledge the existance of gods. If they expect me to worship them, they're asking a bit much - no matter what shape their tender bits are :)

[bloom]

36. "tacking an "-ess" onto the concept of "God"

I simply don't accept the idea that the word "God" is gender-neutral. It's been used too much with "God, the Father" and the female has been far too excluded from the concept - at least in the Judeo/Christian/Muslim traditions.

If "God" was always referred to gender-neutrally - it might be different. If people all thought that "God" is something like energy and people were not giving it male characteristics - it might be different.

For awhile - the more liberal Christian churches were pushing gender-neutral word usage - avoiding referring to "God" as "Him" all the time. Some may still.

But the thing of it is - it's a very important thing for the authoritarian/Strict "Father" model people to have their male "God" figure. So things are way out of balance. And it's not enough having women be "priests" if the God is still mainly considered male. We have at least half of the population pushing the male-centric view of things (and I'm talking about the Republican half - not the male half).


Your experience may be different. I hope it is.

[Chulanowa]

37. I agree, really

I'm fully aware that "God" is not, in common usage, gender-neutral (thus my use of "Divinity" in the title, yeah?). That's just my point. Turning male "God" into female "Goddess" does not address the issue at all. It simply puts a different color paint over the same object. When you believe that there's only one deity and that deity is only one sex, then whoever the other sex is is automaticly "less than favored", get what I'm saying? The only way for religious gender equality is for both sexes to be given the same place - that, or neither sex gets any place. anything else than balance or abstraction creates division, then segregation, then discrimination.

Personally, I feel that if there is one singular deity, it is incredibly far beyond such issues as gender. I mean for crying out loud, such a being would encompass everything, and thus any debate over whether it has a penis or vagina is childish and stupid.

[bloom]

38. It's about the symbolism.

It's always been about the symbolism. But there is some reality that goes along with that symbolism.

So the thing of it is - do people appreciate the gender that actually gives birth - is the birthing process/creation/life going to be appreciated or is it going to be denigrated?

Our culture (and male dominated by 95% media) denigrates women and sex and life.

Violence is glorified. Men are associated with violence - in the movies, on the TV, in war - and it is glorified. Men are welcome, of course, to glorify life instead of death - but that's how the symbolism has been working out. And it's no surprise in India that the symbolism is also of the Destroyer God/Creator Goddess. We have the Terminator image. Where is the Creator image? (It's not going to be a man).

I would rather see life given higher billing than death. At the very least equal billing.

Death is worshiped all over the place and people don't even seem to notice. I think that the Goddess is the best symbol for life and creation - the only one that really makes sense.

The issue does go beyond the sperm meeting the egg. It goes to the whole process of life creation - whether within women or other life forms. It goes to the sense of protecting life as it grows - and protecting conditions for life on earth. It's a mentality. And women symbolize it better than men.

It may be that men don't like the idea that men are relevant to the life creation process for a few minutes at best - while for women it is something that their body is involved in for months and even years. Society (men) elevates what men does to God status - when it's not nearly as big a deal as what women do.

Maybe it's no surprise that a man would say it's childish to compare the penis to the vagina - because there is no comparison - when it comes to life giving properties. And that is what this discussion is about. Life and it's symbolisms.

For the men who participate in life-protecting, nurturing activities - good for them. That role is always there. But religion should not be in the business of pretending that that is more important than the role that women play. And that is what I think most patriarchal religion does.

[beam me up scottie]

39. You're attacking him because he's a man even though he's a true feminist?

Way to go bloom.

You set up your usual straw men and throw a fit when posters destroy them by not agreeing with your sexist viewpoint.

Feminism is about gender equality, not goddesses.

Your opinion that women are superior based on biological differences is just as sexist and no different than Phyllis Schlafly's opinion that men are superior for the same reason.

[Chulanowa]

40. So the woman is to be greater than the man?

Like I said, that's just putting a new coat of paint on the problem. You're simply switching the denigrated party from women to men. Maybe this strikes some chord of "justice" (really revenge), but the truth is it benefits nothing.

Women are not more than men, men are not more than women. I don't know if I'm just not expressing my point well enough or what, but if a patriarchal structure to the religion does not work (and it doesn't), then neither would a matriarchal structure - and for the exact same reasons. Religion is at the center of society for the religious. When the religion favors one sex - As men are now so favored by the Abrahamic faiths - then that sex will be seen as "special", while the other is relegated to the status of breeding stock - As men are in some Wiccan groups. I've seen both, and neither works. One sex dominating over the other creates resentment and a desire to "get even" for the lesser party, and engenders the idea of a "right to abuse" from the greater.

The only way to make it work is to have an equal duality, or to abandon the concept of a gendered singular deity.

[bloom]

45. Mostly, I'm just esp. offended

at the idea of men taking credit for creation.

I think it makes more sense for men to take credit for protection and support.

The matriarchal structure is one of partnership. It is not reverse patriarchy - as many men assume....

From Riane Eisler:

When the first evidence of prehistoric societies where men did not dominate women began to be unearthed in the 19th century, the scholars of that day concluded that since they were not patriarchies they must have been matriarchies. But matriarchy is not the opposite of patriarchy: it is the other side of the coin of a dominator model of society. The real alternative to a patriarchal or male-dominant society is a very different way of organizing social relations. This is the partnership model, where, beginning with the most fundamental difference in our species between male and female, diversity is not equated with inferiority or superiority, dominating or being dominated.

Models are abstractions. But societies that orient primarily to one or the other of these models have characteristic configurations or patterns. These patterns, however, are discernible only when we look at the whole picture. In other words, the reason these patterns were not generally seen in the past is that scholars were looking at an incomplete and distorted picture--one that excluded no less than one-half of the population: women....

The larger picture that emerges from this gender-holistic perspective also indicates that, contrary to popular misconceptions, male dominance and male violence are not innate. Clearly throughout history not all men have been violent. And today many men are consciously rejecting their stereotypical "masculine" roles -- for example, the men who are today redefining fathering in the more caring and nurturing way once stereotypically associated only with mothering. In short, the problem in dominator societies is not men. It is rather the way male identity must be defined in male-dominant societies where, by definition, "masculinity" is equated with domination and conquest-- be it of women, other men, or nature.

To maintain this type of society, boys must be systematically socialized for domination, and therefore, for violence. Male violence has to idealized - as we see in so much of our normative literature celebrating violent "heroes" (for example, the Biblical King David, the Homeric Ulysses, and modern "he-men" such as Rambo). Indeed, in these societies violent behavior patterns are systematically taught to males from early childhood through toys like swords, guns, and violent video games, while only girls are systematically socialized for nurturing, compassion, and caring. Not only that, in these societies sex becomes an act of male conquest and domination, as in the common description of men's affairs with women as "scoring." In addition, the family structure of these societies has to be one where men rule, women serve, and children learn early on that it is very dangerous to challenge orders, no matter how unjust.

http://www.ru.org/71eisler.htm

[Chulanowa]

57. We're still missing parthenogenisis, ma'am

Women can't create life on their own. So far as I know, the only vertibrates capable of a feat like that are three species of whiptail lizard. For the rest of us, we sort of depend on there being both the ovum and the sperm. You're perfectly reasonable to be offended by men taking credit for creation, because, well, it's stupid. But giving that credit to women is just as stupid.

My whole disagreement with you is that one sex or the other needs to be given "top" status. The woman you're quoting has it pretty solid, but what she's saying isn't what you've been saying. If you agree that both should be on equal ground though, I guess I can find a hat to tip at you. :)

[bloom]

81. I suppose

to some extent - I think that men have built themselves up so much (and that would be the men in power - the ones in control of the symbols (like 95% of the media) and history and governments) - that to get to the partnership model that Eisler describes - men are going to have to be knocked off the pedestal where they think the world revolves around them/where women are there for their benefit.

There are different ways of thinking about possible changes - like - men are knocked off the god pedestal so nobody is on the pedestal - men are knocked off and replaced with women - or - men and women are both on the pedestal. I think that some men think that women are on the pedestal because of how women are objectified - but that is not the same at all. (I think that some of scientific/atheist models still have men on the pedestal (god or no god) - as the ones to solve all the problems through technology, etc.)

I think that my choice would be to have nobody on the pedestal and to bring people down to earth. To have people stop pretending that humans can go around thinking only about themselves and that the rest of life is inconsequential. With the way the earth is going - if global warming and extinctions does not change the way people think about this - then nothing will and the earth is just going to become a more miserable place for everybody.

I think it is a consequence of humanity's population explosion that life creation and mothers are less appreciated than ever. Sex has become less about life and people have become more hedonistic. I don't think that sort of thinking is very good for life and the planet either.

I also don't think that the totally scientific POV - as if the world is a non-emotional sterile laboratory - is the way to solve the problems facing earth and humanity.

So it doesn't seem like there are very many good solutions - that address the best way to think about the world and society. I think rituals that help connect people to life and the earth - like the drumming that you have described elsewhere - and this from the article that I linked to - are better than most alternatives. I see it as connecting to the life force - which as you say - is open to men and women.

While I agree with Eisler that that the best model is a partnership society - I think it's evident that what what men put into the act of creation and what women do are not close to being equal. While men are driven to start hundreds of lives (presumably) - women have much more invested physically and emotional in each life that is created. While men can invest in each life that they create as well (and I hope that they do) - men are not the ones whose bodies prepare for life each month and that the life grows inside of them for 9 months - the life which naturally is dependent on the mother for nutritional support and attachment for years after. (I think that men who don't acknowledge these connections are in denial).

I also think that men are more likely to turn their drive to create life into a drive to create death. I don't think that that is something that most women do - but maybe more are these days - what with joining the military and all - and living in a world that can't sustain the people that are here. So if people aren't creating life and they aren't channeling their creative forces into something positive - then what? That's the question.

[trotsky]

83. Sexism.

I think that some of scientific/atheist models still have men on the pedestal (god or no god) - as the ones to solve all the problems through technology, etc.

There is nothing at all about believing technology will solve our problems, that puts men on a pedestal. Thousands of female scientists and atheists would probably disagree with you on that.

Insisting that technology is necessarily "male" is a sexist viewpoint, IMHO.

[bloom]

84. I'm aware that there are plenty of women

who are involved in creating technological answers to problems. Answers to problems are one thing. Most government-funded scientific research and research that is profit driven is not necessarily doing us any favors, AFAIK. Some is, some isn't.

I think that it tends to be a male point of view that glorifies technology at the expense of life - and I see it as another manifestation of the patriarchy. Of course there are women who have bought into the patriarchy as well.




At the same time - there are also men who put life above technology and who recognize patriarchal attitudes for what they are.

[trotsky]

85. So are you retracting your previous statement, then?

And acknowledging that the belief technology can solve our problems does not necessarily involve putting men on a pedestal?

[bloom]

86. I think that there is a conjunction

where technology and patriarchal values come together that continues to put men on a pedestal. (Some may allow women to share the pedestal - and some don't - but that is beside the point). There was a woman scientist who had a sex change to a man - who as a man found that he was taken seriously and listened to far more than as a women. So sexism and men being on pedestals IS a part of the scientific community - with or without my ideas on the subject.

Even with women being in the field in greater numbers does not make a line of endeavors all of a sudden reflect women or make women equally participatory.

Technology can be creative and reflect a love of life. Technology can also be very destructive. It would be a good thing to have people involved in technology who are esp. interested in sustainability and partnership - regardless of gender.


The ideal and the symbolism of a dominator culture can be manifested in those who create new technologies and look for uses for them - when those profits and power are elevated above life and partnership. Whether those people are male or female - makes no difference. As always - women have participated in the dominator way of looking at things - the patriarchy - just as men have.

My problem is with the dominator model as it relates to society as well as technology - not with men or women. Men have been the driving force of the dominator model and therefore they deserve the credit and the blame.

I'll amend and expand the sentence you noted to:

I think that some scientific/atheist models still have men on the pedestal (god or no god) - as the ones to "solve" all the problems through technology - through domination as opposed to cooperation.

I think that some scientific (and some atheist) models understand the need for cooperation between people and the rest of life on the planet and do not see themselves in opposition to nor above others - but seek partnership and sustainability (with nobody on a pedestal).

That would depend on one's worldview.

[trotsky]

87. But that's not what you said.

There was a woman scientist who had a sex change to a man - who as a man found that he was taken seriously and listened to far more than as a women. So sexism and men being on pedestals IS a part of the scientific community - with or without my ideas on the subject.

Yes, I remember reading about that. I also remember the gasket you blew over the story. But having a male bias in the scientific community (which I'll never claim doesn't exist) does not equate to the viewing of technology as the solution to our problems as being a "men on the pedestal" approach.

You don't strike me as someone who is interested in nuances, though. You crave absolutes.

[bloom]

88. "You crave absolutes."

It seems to me that you have thrown that out there before.

And maybe you just happen to miss the nuances and look for the absolutes.



Seems to me I said that you're pretty black and white yourself.

And I'll say it again.

[trotsky]

89. You can keep saying it.

But everything else you write would indicate the opposite.

[bloom]

90. At least as far as this particular forum goes

I am interested in universalism and various ways of looking at the world - and I've posted about different things. I'm open to new ideas like "Integral thought" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_thought - I haven't decided if I agree with it as posted - but I think the idea is worth considering. I'd say that that is anything BUT black and white thinking.

You seem to be a one track pony. I don't see you saying anything about what you DO think - just what you don't. It's easy to disagree with people. Nitpick this and that sentence. That doesn't take much thought. Just some black and white thinking.


Prove me wrong. Start a nuanced thread about your worldview - that's not about bashing Christians or defending atheism.

[trotsky]

91. Say what?

bloom, I just caught you making a black-and-white statement. You backtracked and qualified it, thankfully, but then launch an attack on ME as being a black-and-white thinker. Incredible chutzpah you've got there.

Please feel free to use your search function to find a plethora of threads I've started that aren't "about bashing Christians or defending atheism." (By the way, if I have started a thread that bashed Christians - not just fundie Christians - I challenge you to cite it rather than insinuating I have done so. Unless you're just getting bogged down in your all-or none thinking again.)

[Chulanowa]

96. Nobody on the pedestal sounds good to me

However, "bring people down to earth"? That would indeed be nice, but I'm not an idealist.

Remember that we're animals, first and foremost. We eat, defecate, and breed. To our omnivorous perceptions, everything is food. To our nomadic natures, everywhere is a toilet. And to our ever-ready genetals, "now" is always a great time to get busy. In our heads, we know better, of course, but these base urges are hard for us to deny. Even the most virtuous among us is, at heart, a hungry, horny mammal looking for somewhere to take a crap where he hopes to not step in it.

To our credit, we can train ourselves to resist these urges. But then, someone always ruins it by breeding, and then we have to try to train THAT bunch of rugrats how to not crap where they sleep, and they always get it wrong... Just ask your grandparents. And their grandparents. Each successive generation has always been a bunch of screwups.

When you get down to earth, we're still a bunch of self-centered chimpanzeess with a hair loss problem who travel in packs. Sadly what you speak of - Making people more selfless and world-aware - would require a hell of a lot of tinkering with our biological building blocks, and then the extinction of everyone who didn't share this selfless nature, as they would certainly abuse the heck out of the new guys.

Thankfully for the world around us, species in the homo genus tend to smart themselves to death rather rapidly. Sapiens has probably already reached its zenith. While all our modern medical advances are great for the society we live in, they are a continuing disaster for the longevity of the species as a whole, and even the generation of a successor species. Let me put it this way - there's a reason polio was around, and why our bodies start breaking down at about age 60. I'd say we've got another couple thousand years of downhill coasting before finally hitting the big brick wall that we helped introduce the dodo to.

On the earth or in the clouds, humans will be what humans are, and that's a digestive tract wrapped in meat and put on a pair of locomotive appendages. We will eat our way through this planet. Saying "God told us to" is just what people came up with to assauge the guilt when they realized the juicy, tender mammoth weren't likely to come back.

No, I suppose it's not a really rosy picture I paint. This is why there are religions, disciplines, and codes of thought from day one of human history - to try to be something other than a marauding band of opposable-thumbed miscreants. Humans are destroyers, bloom, not just the ones with testicles. Women have taken part in the massacre of species, the massacre of other humans, ruination of what we consider the best environment ever, and you betitted lot still seem to not be doing much more than we bedicked lot to draw a halt to these sort of practices. Individualy, sure, there's women out there, just as there are men. But, until I see you gals stand up, at least the majority, and actually do something that's different than what the guys are doing, I'm maintaining that we all suck equally

Cruising on a uterus is no different than cruising on a penis. You didn't give yourself that thing, and it doesn't make you anything more special than the ravenous ape with a giant head that you are - along with hte rest of us.

[greyl]

97. I agree with much of your post, but strongly disagree with

your characterization of humans as defective animals that are doomed to fail.
We have a 3 million year history of success(or else we wouldn't be here today), and there are thousands of cultures still existing with members who continue to live the relatively peaceful, and thoroughly satisfying lives that they have for hundreds of generations.
Ours isn't one of them.

[Chulanowa]

98. Evolutionarily speaking, we're a dud.

A very interesting dud, perhaps, but look at it this way. The goal of a species is to exist as long as possible, right? If a species can be said to have a goal, that is.

Take the coyote, Canis latrans. This little dude has been running around, in his exact current form, for six million years. Huamns, in our current form, have only been around for three hundred thousand years. Humans, as an entire genus, two million. Hominids as a family? Four million. In those four million years, the family has produced probably at least ninety species, all of which lasted less than a million years each.

Four million years have seen ninety or so variations of hominid, none of whom lived long enough to really even leave that many remains, while there's only been one coyote. To be fair, coyote did give rise to both wolf and jackal, jackals around five million years ago, wolves about four.

Our rapid speciation and equally rapid extinction indicates a group of animals that lives hard and fast, but dies young. There's really no reason to think that sapiens is going to be the one to finally reach the million-year mark for the hominids. Erectus came close, and he wasn't the one covering his food supply under layer upon layer of oily rock.

When one is talking from a biological standpoint, peace and satisfaction are bupkis. Do you give a damn whether a hundred generations from now, people live in peace and happiness? It's easy to say you do, because it makes you feel good about yourself to do so. But do you really, truly care? Nah. As animals, we're concerned with what we can perceive. The people close to us up until the point we ourselves diw. The people we see on the television or read about. The "here and now", in other words. Even religion only serves for the hear and now, caters to the immediacy mindset of our species. A Christian worrie whether he and his family are good enough for heavan, but chances are, he doesn't really apply this to a guy in Tasmania who'll be born three centuries after the given Christian is dead. This isn't because we're cold, heartless things. It's just because our brains are wired a certain way. We care for our young, we worry about our neighbors, and we sympathize with htose we preceive. Everyone else is an abstract concept. It's not that we have anything against the unperceived, it's just that we can't make our minds give a damn about something it doesn't know actually exists.

Because of our instinctual self-interest, we'll either wind up devouring all our resources and starving into extinction, or our own fear of death will drive us to shield outselves from every disease and condition that might ever cause death, thereby resulting in either one miller untouchable bug, or breeding ourslves into such a bad genetic state that we wind up with more still births than live.

At the survace, the unavoidable oblivion of one's own species might be a little stress-inducing, but in reality it's no big deal. We certainly won't be the first, and only a truely misanthropist person would believe we'll be the last. I find it kind of comforting, a reminder that we are a part of this world and subject to the natural laws of biology.

[Chulanowa]

99. And just as a note...

I'm going to leave that post exactly the way it is as a reminder of why DU features a spell-check button. Egads. Maybe I should get some sleep.

[bloom]

100. "Do you give a damn whether a hundred generations from now..."

...people live in peace and happiness?"


I don't think people are going to live that long.

I think if enough people willed it - people could turn this thing around and stop making the earth uninhabitable.

I think that an effort will be made - there will be more restrictions on what people can do, how much industries can pollute, how many children people can have. In the meantime - I expect there to be more and more problems with birth defects and disease. The oceans are running out of fish, the Krill are being vacuumed up. Vegetarianism may be a requirement instead of an option in 25-50 years.

I think - for anyone willing to think about it - the implications of what is happening to our world are enormous. A lot of people are thinking about it. "Solar panels are now compulsory on all new and renovated buildings in Spain as part of the country’s efforts to bring its building rules up to date and curb growing demand for energy." http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15698812

That seems like a pretty big step. Some countries/some people are taking them.


On the one hand parents can become more concerned for the environment (as parents) - on the other hand - parents can have a tendency to be cocoon-like and not dwell on the rest of the world. While I am concerned about what life is going to be life for future generations - it's easier for me to be concerned about the earth as a whole. For the whole life process.

I think that humans are being so destructive that it's harder to have hope about that. But I can have hope for life in general. I think that having images from all over the world has made it less abstract than it would be. If all I knew of the world was within 10 miles of where I lived - that would a whole different deal. And a lot less to worry about.

[Chulanowa]

102. We've got life left in us yet

Our entie concept of civilization will crumble, and we will return to being wandering hunter-gatherers before we finally go extinct. Ever heard of the olduvui theory? :) Sadly, we really have nowhere to go but down, even if we reign ourselves in to the best possible behavior. This is because our civilization, no matter how moderate we may make it, depends on limited resources. No matter how little we consume of these resources, there will be a point where they simply are no longer there, and our civilization crumbles around us.

I'd say, as a species, we've got a few hundred thousand more years. As a civilized species... Oh... Maybe a thousand years. Past that, things start looking like "Battlefield Earth" without the bad scripting and worse acting.

[salvorhardin]

41. Umm... a small problem here.

It's always been about the symbolism. But there is some reality that goes along with that symbolism.

Not necessarily. In fact, I can think of plenty of symbols, strings of symbols and operators to do interesting things with those symbols with no connection to reality whatsoever. Perfectly logical, and perfectly true. Not even the remotest connection to reality though. And if we can create such symbols in math, you can be assured the human brain is perfectly capable of creating natural language words with as tenuous a connection to reality as a Riemann sphere.

On edit... A lot of problems.

Maybe it's no surprise that a man would say it's childish to compare the penis to the vagina - because there is no comparison - when it comes to life giving properties. And that is what this discussion is about. Life and it's symbolisms.

Not even close to true. In sexual reproduction, both sperm and egg are needed to produce an offspring. To say that a woman somehow has greater life-giving properties is inane. Already we are capable of in vitro fertilization, and premature fetuses are viable at earlier and earlier ages. How long before the womb is completely unnecessary? The fact of the matter is that in nature life just happens. Humans are getting closer and closer to having control over how, where and when human life occurs. To ascribe any of this to god or goddess is as inane as your original premise concerning female life-giving properties.

For the men who participate in life-protecting, nurturing activities - good for them. That role is always there. But religion should not be in the business of pretending that that is more important than the role that women play. And that is what I think most patriarchal religion does.

I agree with you here that religion should not be in the business of dictating anybody's worth. However, here again you are ascribing all these positive nurturing qualities to women and all these awful, brutish qualities to men. That seems to me to be ignorant of both the nature of the human animal and of history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boudica
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_arc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_victoria

There's just a few examples of women doing all the nasty business that men do. We're animals. Our primary biological purpose in life is to reproduce and make sure our offspring reach the age where they can reproduce. Everything else flows from it. Art, music, science, war, love for our children, family.

Do women have different adaptations than men to carry out that goal? It looks like it. Does that make women better than men, or men better than women. Hell, no. Sure, there's a lot of cultural baggage that we should all just throw out the window and be done with it. But to say we need to invert that cultural baggage and then anthropomorphize it onto some supernatural being... that's just silly.

[muriel_volestrangler]

43. Your knowledge of Hinduism seems lacking

And it's no surprise in India that the symbolism is also of the Destroyer God/Creator Goddess. We have the Terminator image. Where is the Creator image? (It's not going to be a man).

Who are the Hindu Trinity?

Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesa constitute the trinity of Hinduism. Brahma is the creator, Vishnu is the preserver and Siva is the destroyer. They are assisted in their duties, by their consorts, or associated goddesses namely, Saraswathi, Lakshmi and Parvathi respectively. Saraswathi is the goddess of speech and Lakshmi, of wealth while Parvathi is usually worshipped as Mother Goddess. These three gods are rulers of three different worlds. Brahma is the ruler of Brahmalok, Vishnu of Vaikunth and Siva of Kailash.

http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/hindutrinity.asp

[okasha]

44. bloom is probably referring

to Shiva the destroyer and Kali, his consort/avatar, who is both destroyer and creator.

[Chulanowa]

58. There's a lot of variations on the basics.

Shiva is often depicted as hermaphroditic, and has many aspects.

Shiva Nataraja, called lord of the dance
Shiva Ardhanari, the androdyne
Shiva Digambara, the naked
Shiva Pasupati, lord of the beasts
Shiva Linga, the fertile
Shiva Mahayogi, the great teacher

There's hundreds more.

The Hindu trinity also depends on which branch of Hinduism you're talking to - Some count the trinity as Brahma, Vishnu, and Mahesa as your source does, others use Brahma, Vishnu, and Indra, while still others use Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva. There's also plenty that don't bother with a trinity at all.

There is a lot more to Hinduism than you'll ever be able to find on th web or in a book :)

[bloom]

82. I was mostly picturing some art that I had seen

in a museum - and that was how it was described. As the god and goddess - the destroyer and creator. I wrote down the names - but I don't know what I did with it. There were a couple similar ones and it mentioned that they were one thing in one culture and other names somewhere else.

I do think it's interesting how religious concepts are described through the artwork. Like the idea of a god that is all seeing and helping - and you have these statues with a person with dozens of eyes and many arms.

It's really different from how "western"/Christian artists describe "god". A man on the cross - and you have to know the story or it looks like someone is glorifying execution (? I think it would seem very odd to an outsider). Sometimes there are images that have been painted of "God" and they look like an ordinary man - maybe ghost like. There is no attempt to symbolize special powers or abilities. I think that probably has an effect on men identifying with the "God" - it seems more like themselves (when it's NOT portrayed with multiple arms and eyes, etc.)

[SPKrazy]

48. While I Don't Agree In Principle With Much Of What You Say

It would be hard for me to argue that men have done a good job of running things in a patriarchal society.

I say let's elect women, and let them run the world and maybe the world would end up a better place.

But I hope that my role is not just to become a sperm donor for a few minutes, because I find so much more in life that is important.

I agree that women are demeaned in many if not most churches in our country and the world.

I think it is interesting that the Greek word(I think Greek) for Wisdom is Sophia, and the book of Wisdom in the OT is the book of Sophia.

Some really interesting stuff has been written on Sophia wisdom and religions of the old and new testaments.

Equality is where I think the real aim should be, but that may involve giving women the reins for a while to balance all the b.s. that men have unleashed on this world.

[neebob]

53. You don't have to worry about being just a sperm donor

because so few women are truly willing to support themselves, financially and emotionally. It's easier to sit around imagining goddesses, chanting and obsessing about menstruation, trying not to think about how my other behaviors demonstrate my dependence on men and whether I could ever really stop competing for them and go it alone.

There, now I've slammed some women.

[SPKrazy]

60. LOL

yes you've slammed some women

quite a funny post though

I won't worry about being a sperm donor

[neebob]

42. Women need education and income

a lot more than they need a bunch of nutty rituals and mumbo-jumbo about goddesses. Introspection and critical thinking are also extremely effective against dependence on men - much more so, I'd say, than frolicking in the forest celebrating menstruation.

[beam me up scottie]

46. Thank you, neebob. You'd think that would be obvious.

And I always love your sarcasm, it's superb.

[neebob]

47. Thanks, BMUS

It takes one to know one. If we were sitting in a forest under a full moon, we could pat each other's bellies and chant to the goddess of sarcasm. We wouldn't need to smear our faces with menstrual blood - rich and dark or otherwise - for that, and anyway I wouldn't want to.

[beam me up scottie]

63. But that would be anti-woman!

We're in a war here, dammit!

[neebob]

68. Well, then why aren't we tackling the men and smearing THEIR faces?

If that's too hard, we could just sneak up behind them, stick Always with Wings on their backs and spray them with FDS.

I like the symbolism of the wings - it represents their flight away from us.

Who's in charge of this lameass war, anyway? I have ideas.

[beam me up scottie]

69. Brilliant!

They're terrified of feminine hygiene products!

Why even the commercials send them running from the room.

Of course, they're so tasteless they send me running from the room too, but that's beside the point.

We need to brainwash them into thinking their privates need hygiene too.

One bikini wax and they're toast.

[neebob]

70. It's already called MENstruation.

That's how smart the patriarchs are.

[SPKrazy]

49. Very good points

education, income, critical thinking and empowerment are all more important than "the goddess"

[bloom]

50. People I know

who are into this - include a lawyer, a successful business woman, and a manager - all educated, empowered, with their own good incomes and plenty of critical thinking. There is nothing about "goddess" practices that exclude "education, income, critical thinking and empowerment".

And frankly to suggest that women or anyone else who practice "Goddess" rituals are not educated, etc. is what people usually consider to be prejudiced, bigoted, etc. POVs.

Think about it - if someone said a similar thing about Christians - wouldn't you expect Christians to find that rather insulting? I suppose it was intended to be. And I think that the whole thing just goes to show ya - it's so easy so for people to slam women.

"education, income, critical thinking and empowerment are all more important than "(put your favorite religion or philosophy here)"

Like I said elsewhere - there is nothing that excludes atheists from practicing goddess rituals. There is nothing that excludes people who understand and study science from being interested in and educating oneself about alternative religious practices.


(This is directed toward all of these sorts of comments in this subthread.)

[neebob]

51. Oh, for pete's sake

I did not suggest or even loosely imply that the women who practice goddess rituals are uneducated. I said they need education and income more than they need goddess rituals. I did not say goddess practices exclude education, income, critical thinking, or empowerment. I did not slam women; I am one.

I said nothing about atheists being excluded from any practice - I don't believe I ever have - since you seem to be projecting that whole issue onto me. I'm assuming you are, because I started this subthread.

I read the article, educated myself about its content, and yes I decided it's stupid. It is stupid. If you're insulted by that, I'd say you have a self-esteem problem.

And you don't know my intent or what else I know.

[bloom]

55. I see the article as being about women

having rituals that celebrate being a woman - that celebrate life. And for you to slam that - sounds anti-woman to me - and it doesn't matter if you are a woman or not.

I am impressed by women who find ways to celebrate life and make meaningful connections to others.


I am not so impressed with people who denigrate other's religious practices - as you put it - "nutty rituals and mumbo-jumbo" etc.


Nobody said (that I am aware of ) that women should practice rituals and NOT be educated or introspective, etc. People need air more than they need education - but so what? We could get into a discussion on Maslow's hierarchy of needs....but your comment wasn't really a conversations starter. It seemed designed to insult people who have different ideas about rituals from your own.

[beam me up scottie]

61. Oh brother. Oops, how "anti-woman" of me, I meant to say oh sister.

But I'll have to get my misogynistic friend neebob to beat me for it later.

Right now, I want to address the pattern of behaviour I've been noticing in this thread and others, starting with this comment:

I see the article as being about women having rituals that celebrate being a woman - that celebrate life. And for you to slam that - sounds anti-woman to me

Let me get this straight, anyone who criticizes your fey little fluff piece is automatically "anti-woman"?

IMO, you should spend less time trying on religions and more time expanding that stunted and un-evolved view of the world, because it's not men against women, bloom, it never was, and comments like that misrepresent and hinder the goal of true feminists everywhere: gender equality

Keep insulting feminists of both sexes though, while claiming you have such a "positive" worldview, maybe you'll eventually find someone who can ignore the hypocrisy and give you what you're looking for.

I am impressed by women who find ways to celebrate life and make meaningful connections to others.

IMO, judging by the caliber of the websites you frequently advertise here, that's not such a difficult task.

I am not so impressed with people who denigrate other's religious practices - as you put it - "nutty rituals and mumbo-jumbo" etc.

Right. Because that is SO unlike the behaviour of a person who uses this forum to constantly denigrate DU's atheists.

Make up your mind.

You yammer on about how "needing the goddess" ISN'T a religion and then accuse neebob of being intolerant of "religious practices" when she gives her opinion (which you solicited, by the way, by posting your thread in this forum).

To compound the hypocrisy, you repeatedly used your own ridiculously simplistic definitions of other religions to support your claims that said religions were inherently sexist.

Your ignorance was obvious enough to prompt another poster to explain "There is a lot more to Hinduism than you'll ever be able to find on th web or in a book"

And a quick read of the posts on this thread reveals that you are the one inferring, accusing and spinning everyone's words, bloom.

You've managed to insult everyone who disagreed with your sexist interpretation:

The idea is that it is easier to replace a negative thing with a positive thing instead of just getting rid of the negative thing and having nothing.
I can see where men wouldn't necessarily get this idea. After all - men are the beneficiaries of the patriarchy whether they embrace the patriarchal religions or not.

It may be that men don't like the idea that men are relevant to the life creation process for a few minutes at best - while for women it is something that their body is involved in for months and even years. Society (men) elevates what men does to God status - when it's not nearly as big a deal as what women do.

Maybe it's no surprise that a man would say it's childish to compare the penis to the vagina - because there is no comparison - when it comes to life giving properties. And that is what this discussion is about.

Think about it - if someone said a similar thing about Christians - wouldn't you expect Christians to find that rather insulting? I suppose it was intended to be. And I think that the whole thing just goes to show ya - it's so easy so for people to slam women.

People need air more than they need education - but so what? We could get into a discussion on Maslow's hierarchy of needs....but your comment wasn't really a conversations starter. It seemed designed to insult people who have different ideas about rituals from your own.

It's pretty obvious who's insulting people who have different ideas about these rituals.

And if you can't handle dissenting opinions, maybe you shouldn't start threads about your latest pseudo-religion du jour in this forum.

Try the groups.

[neebob]

65. There are no goddesses either, bloom

If you want to pretend that there are, you go. There are lots of ways to make meaningful connections with other women that don't involve vain pretenses and obsessions with bodily functions. Smearing each other with icky goo has no effect on the patriarchy, especially if we all go home and feed it afterward.

It's a dumb article, and my saying so does not make me anti-woman.

[bloom]

72. Rituals in Context

Some women (and "feminists" even) think that the way to independence is through make-up - a different ritual (whether they call it that or not). Putting toxic chemicals (for the most part - untested, often cancer-causing) on one's face. As a disguise, essentially. So it's the opposite of what this article encourages.

I don't think that it's necessary or necessarily desirable to put menstrual blood on my face - but in the scheme of things - and compared to other things that people do - it's pretty harmless. And it is part of breaking the barrier - so I understand the symbolism involved. And this article is from the 70s when there were more barriers to break. Though I think the barriers are being rebuilt these days.

Women are often taught to hate (and fear?) their bodies. If this ritual helps some women to break through that - so that a normal bodily function loses it's sense of "icky"-ness - that seems like a positive thing - not a stupid thing. Though it is just one possible ritual among countless involving the concept of women getting together and creating bonding experiences - and it just becomes something to focus on - to ridicule - for people who are looking for that.

Compare frolicking in the woods with "frolicking" in a shopping mall - buying all sorts of useless crap. The ritual of consumerism contributes to bringing down the planet. Enjoying the woods and creating bonds based on a shared sense of building each other up instead of tearing each other down are far less stupid in my mind.

And that's nothing to the sports rituals, war rituals, and other competitive-minded things - way beyond stupid.

People come from different perspectives. I live in a world of art and poetry - where the creation of rituals and and enjoying symbolism are pretty normal. Some people have different experiences - are taught that such things are "stupid" or whatever. As if it's "stupid" to enjoy life and creation.

I think it's useful to be open to different avenues of breaking through the crap that is our mainstream, corporate-dominated society - which has many rituals which are truly stupid - of little use and which cause much damage.

[neebob]

73. Okay, since you're putting so much effort into convincing me

I will tell you I don't think it's stupid to learn about goddesses and rituals, especially in a historical context. I don't agree that I have to do the rituals and pretend the goddesses are real to learn is all.

I hear ya, too, about all the body stuff and barriers. This is where the introspection and critical thinking come in. If you can't just examine your thought process and change your behavior, or if you're unwilling to change, then you might need an empty ritual to feel like you're doing something.

You keep blowing by my point about this - doing and saying, words and actions, frolicking in the forest and then going home to feed the patriarchy. Maybe you're not reading me because you're too busy writing.

The author of this article says women need the goddess. I say like a hole in the head. She blathers on about moods, motivations, and menstruation without ever making her case. And so what if it's from the seventies - she's still using it to promote her institute and her treks to Greece. Hello - can you say "career building?" Can you say "ego"?

How come you're not questioning her motivation in the same way you're questioning - no, make that judging mine? You don't know what I think about art and poetry or how I enjoy life. For all you know, I get together with my girlfriends to talk about art and poetry. And what do they have to do with the question at hand? Why are sports stupid, but goddess rituals are not? You don't really think shopping is totally about consumerism, do you? Sometimes people need things. And who really thinks that makeup is about independence?

Try applying some of that critical thinking to yourself and this goddess guru chick.

[bloom]

74. I don't care if you're convinced or not

I just didn't think that the subject deserved to end with your pronouncement that it was stupid - as if it were any more stupid than a lot of things that people do. As if it were as equally vacuous as most modern rituals that people perform. Or as if it were as equally destructive to the planet as other rituals - which it is clearly not.

I would rather people be doing more earth-life-connection rituals - not less. I think that there are many benefits to people who are finding things to do besides shopping - the vast majority of which is unnecessary. And I would rather people not be dissuaded from considering doing positive rituals because someone on a message board could not see the value in it.

Sports encourages competitiveness - professional sports encourages consumerism - it's all great if you support the patriarchy.

...But the point is, it does make sense: it's a way of building up irrational attitudes of submission to authority, and group cohesion behind leadership elements -- in fact, it's training in irrational jingoism. That's also a feature of competitive sports. I think if you look closely at these things, I think, typically, they do have functions, and that's why energy is devoted to supporting them and creating a basis for them and advertisers are willing to pay for them and so on."

- Noam Chomsky in the documentary "Manufacturing Consent"


Are you really going to defend putting toxic chemicals on your face? Whatever the reason. Is there a reason that justifies it?


As far as "...then going home to feed the patriarchy" - Maybe you could be more specific. So we live in a patriarchal society. People do what they do - that doesn't mean that women shouldn't challenge it in whatever ways they want to come up with. Most people go along with the whole shebang without questioning it at all.

[neebob]

75. It is more stupid than a lot of things people do

because goddesses don't exist. There's something wrong, in my opinion, with women who need imaginary supernatural beings and rituals to connect with one another. And if they then go home to husbands and boyfriends who support them financially in return for sex and housekeeping, if they can't even imagine life without a man but also refuse to examine and admit to the depth of their need, if they encourage their daughters to attach themselves to men in the same fashion, if they continue to compete for the attention and approval of men in other areas of their lives, it's so much bullshit.

So you - and I mean you in the broader sense of any woman, not you personally - have a goddess inside and you love her fiercely. How nice for you, dear, that she doesn't expect you to walk your talk.

No, I'm not going to defend putting toxic chemicals on your face. I asked about your statement that some women think wearing makeup is the way to independence. Do you personally know anyone who thinks that? I don't. However, I do know lots of women who think it improves their appearance, and that helps them feel more confident and be more successful. It may have something to do with men, too, if they're honest, but it doesn't have to be about men. It's a matter of fashion and personal choice. You'd have to be pretty dumb to think it's the way to independence.

If it's the toxic chemicals you have a problem with, you know, they have makeup now that doesn't contain petroleum and alcohol and junk.

I don't see anything wrong with competitive sports, either. Competition is natural. I'd rather see women competing with each other and with men in sports than competing for men to pair off with. Just because somebody saw a way to make money off of a thing doesn't mean the thing itself is bad.

If everyone started doing goddess rituals, there'd soon be a massive industry around that. That's just the way the world works.

[bloom]

76. I don't know why you are assuming

that women who are attracted to these ideas and rituals are likely to be married and dependent. It's been my experience that people who are interested in this are not - that they are more independent and independent-minded than most people. And more likely to reject the standard rituals of modern society.

So people like to get together with people who think similarly. :shrug:

I don't think it's the big problem (or whatever reason you are so set against it) that you make it out to be - just because they see things differently from you.

And I certainly don't see any harm in it. More positive results than anything else.


What you are doing seems like the kind of thing that people do to keep everyone in line - be "normal". To discourage people from going off and doing something different. It's just like what keeps people from telling people in their lives that they are atheists. It's the kind of thinking that keeps people following conventions. But then maybe that's just what you're into.

[neebob]

77. Yes, well, you can't seem to resist making it personal

I don't know why you can't just accept that someone else thinks it's bullshit, especially after repeated attempts to explain why. You talk about conversation as if you value it, but you're only into the kind where you do all the talking and your ideas aren't challenged.

Your last paragraph is so full of shit it's hardly worth addressing, but I'll tell you what keeps atheists from telling people in their lives that they're atheists: magical thinking of the very kind you're advocating, and judgments based on magical thinking. That seems more like what you're doing.

[bloom]

79. You seem to have to assume that there is "magical thinking".

When it's just a different perspective.

All the easier to think that there is something stupid about it. It's all relative, it's all perspective. And ours are different. I suppose we agree on that.

[neebob]

80. Right, it's not magical thinking because the goddess doesn't exist.

So let's those of us who know that do the rituals, anyway, and hope the symbology will change our subconscious minds. Maybe the imaginary goddess will eventually overpower Daddy. I think not.

[beam me up scottie]

78. What she's doing, bloom, is called THINKING. That's what real feminists do.

Critical thought, you should give it a whirl sometime, it beats falling for every two-bit pseudo-religion du jour that's packaged and marketed to the chronically gullible.

And what did you think was going to happen when you posted a thread about your latest religion in here?

We were all going to smear blood on our faces, hold hands and sing Kumbaya?

You knew damn well that not everyone was going to wet themselves at the thought of a sexist female deity, so why are you acting like you're being deprived of some sort of religious freedom because neebob gave you what you asked for?

[beam me up scottie]

59. Hey! How dare you use a male gender based phrase to express your exasperation?

Get with the goddess, :spank: we changed it to "Oh, for Priscilla's sake!" a long time ago.

[Random_Australian]

62. Oh, for Priscalla's sake!

In other words, I really really want some rice wine made by the company 'Priscilla'.

:)

Interesting how ambiguous things can be.

[beam me up scottie]

64. Sounds tasty, I'll be right over.

I'll have to check with headquarters first, though, I don't want to get in trouble for fraternizing with the enemy again.

[neebob]

66. Oh, I thought I was sticking it to the man

by saying pete and not capitalizing it. What if I say Patsy's sake instead of Priscilla's? "Oh, for Patsy's sake" sounds better, I think.

[beam me up scottie]

67. That works too.

Anything but a man's name.

If we're going to go through with this plot to reinvent the world from a sexist female's point of view, we really should start working some overtime.

I'll get with the union rep tomorrow.

[Finder]

54. I believe you, BUT...

as an atheist who has an altar(collection)of goddesses figures and other female figures throughout "herstory" and mythology, I do not worship them as a religious person would.

The symbolism they possess is empowering and I have shared them with other females who were struggling with self-esteem issues with positive results. I have even engaged in some rituals but still, not in a religious sense although some may interpret them as religious. The same can be said about meditation as far as some interpreting it as purely religious.(which it isn't)

On the other hand, I am acquainted with a few wiccans and goddess worshippers and they have gotten wrapped up in the whole supernatural magic, spellcasting, dressing gothy phase.(usually from reading one book or being fans of a tv show.)

[bloom]

56. symbolism & rituals /religion

I can see how some people would rather think of something (symbolism & rituals) as a visualization (not religion) while others would like to see the same thing AS a religion.

I think it just depends on what people think about religion as a concept - if they think it's a positive or negative concept overall.

And I suppose to some extent - it depends on how "religiously" a person practices a thing - or identifies with it or whatever.


"The symbolism they possess is empowering and I have shared them with other females who were struggling with self-esteem issues with positive results."

Thanks for sharing. I think that there is no doubt that such things can be positive for some people.

[neebob]

52. Agreed!

More important, more productive, more effective against the patriarchy.

[Evoman]

71. I don't care if its a god or goddess, as long as it ain't white.

My people have been kept down to long....what we need is a Latino god. Why does god/dess have to be a caucasian, huh? That ain't fair. If god can't salsa, then heshe ain't worth worshipping.

And I prefer a latina god....who looks like Salma Hayek. Since I worship her already, the change will be easy for me.

[greyl]

95. They don't. They need to be treated like goddesses.

I doubt that a struggled explanation is necessary.

edit: but, maybe a little: When the actual women of a culture are afforded a satisfying lot in that culture, their needs for a Goddess, in the way that you argue, is nonexistent.

[bloom]

101. "When the actual women of a culture...

"...are afforded a satisfying lot in that culture, their needs for a Goddess...is nonexistent"


Of course - that hasn't happened for the men who like to have a male image of a God. (I just felt like I needed to point that out.)


I never could picture "God" as a man - even symbolically. It just doesn't make sense to me. But then there were all of those Jesus pictures - so I guess I more or less had an image in my mind of him. Although "praying to Jesus" never made sense to me, either. I figured if I was going to pray to anything it would be to whatever abstract sort of "God" I could conjure up. I never did have any sort of image.


If I am so inclined - I find it easier to visualize a "Universal Mother" image that gives people hugs. I think that the point of that is to get one's mind on a positive track. Of course there are other positive sorts of visualizations that people could do. And of course - our culture is full of "SuperMan" types of images. That's not substantively different.

[Nikia]

103. But are cultures with goddesses matriarchal or gender egalitarian?

In college, I took a archaeology of gender class. We found that the answer was that they generally were not. A female deity, just like a female ruler in earlier times did not always mean better things for women.

[bloom]

104. cultures

Most things that I have seen have suggested that matriarchal does not mean women control everything but that control is more balanced. The ideal is a partnership society instead of a dominator society.



Compare and contrast:

Michele Bachelet... appointed 50% of women in every level of government

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2755138


This is disgusting...read at your own discretion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2752005&mesg_id=2752005


Could women be that disgusting? I don't know - but I don't think so. And there is nothing positive about those men in the Congo with their dominator society. Not one thing. All that does is get people looking for ways to do them in - and so it goes. And look at how the women are used. What happens to them.

Would it be better if people in the culture had something in mind where women were appreciated? A symbol of a Goddess? I don't know - but it's difficult to imagine that it could be any worse. (And I wouldn't want to imagine it).