Page 2 of 5

Posted: Wed May 04, 2005 7:01 am
by Ragnar
I don't think it was a particularly "christian" thing to hate women. Look at the big three monothiestic groups, they are all arabs. christians are just middle Eastern invaders, who split from the other Arab tribes and tried thier hand at a bit of supression in Europe.

The Divine Cosmic Mother....

Posted: Wed May 04, 2005 5:53 pm
by dragonflydrummer
EVERPAGAN said:
It's worked pretty well now for, say, about 2000 years or so.
According to the authors -- since the beginning of the Bronze Age. About 6,000 years -- prior to that there were matriarchies in Europe and over much of the globe. It's an interesting read...
Xtianity is one of the more recent installments of the patriarchal drive to control.
flyaway:

Written in the eighties and unfortunately not updated the by authors -- (Sjoo & Mor) are a little short-sighted about some of the developments that would follow -- particularly about the controversy around Marija Gimbutas' archeological theories -- but by & large their ideas are pretty sound.
Men control the world by controlling women. :smt096

Posted: Wed May 04, 2005 9:15 pm
by Ragnar
"Men conrol the world by controling women",
I agree in full. In my house I get to decide the important things like whether we should have nuclear weapons and power, whether the world bank should cancel third world debt etc. My Wife decides the trivialities like where the next meal comes from, how much is left in the bank, whether we should have kids etc.
EXACTLY how it should be.

Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 5:50 am
by dragonflydrummer
Heh heh heh.... :lol:

Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 6:07 am
by 2Crunchy
Another really good book on this subject is When God Was A Woman, by Merlin Stone. Unfortunately it was written in 1976, when militant feminism ran rampant and I can see a lot of that mindset in the book. Not that feminism is necessarily bad, just that I think it influenced the author's interpretation of things to a degree. But certainly no more than the Christian paradigm influenced past interpretation of archaeological evidence.

I think that it is interesting, looking back through history, that when the Divine was seen as feminine, women had more equality and power (perhaps at times even more than the men). The rise of a masculine deity coincides with the rise of men's power and the subjugation of women. But which influenced the other? Kind of the "which came first the chicken or the egg" type of question, don't you think?

a mom & pop operation...

Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 8:42 am
by dragonflydrummer
From what I can discern of it -- the matriarchal structures evolved through the stone ages and found an apex in the agrarian "revolution" at Sumer (Ishtar/Inanna) and other such farming centers of civilization. The patriarchal structures seem to come from the nomadic shepherds and goat-herds. Maybe this accounts for the "herd mentality" so prevelant in the world today.

Present day paganism (ie. Wicca) tends to try to balance some of this by having a sort of Shakti/Shiva, Lady and Lord pairing of consorts. But face it: Magic is of and from the Mother-- ain't no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
:queen: :reindeer:

I don't think there's anything wrong with feminist thought. It sure beats sitting around as slaves waiting for the "Rapture."

Re: a mom & pop operation...

Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 6:47 pm
by 2Crunchy
dragonflydrummer wrote: I don't think there's anything wrong with feminist thought. It sure beats sitting around as slaves waiting for the "Rapture."
Neither do I. But I think in this particular book, the author was so intent upon finding evidence of women being held in higher regard than men, that it may have tainted her as far as looking at the evidence impartially. I think she may have taken some small things and made them into very big things, just to fit the agenda of her book. Don't get me wrong. I think there is a lot of fantastic evidence in this book. But I think whenever we read anything we should try to consider the culture and background of the author and of the times.

Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 1:27 am
by dragonflydrummer
I must at the top admit I have not read Merlin Stone's book.

I'm pretty sure there were times when women were held in higher regard than men in terms of their importance to the common good. Certainly in nature there are evidences of it among other species.

I think the idea is that the males are -- excepting for fertilizing the ova -- a superfluous gender. The realization of this has prompted the insane take-over by patriarchies in reaction. From looking at examples in the world -- of foolish men wielding power, and the childish bad stewardship of Gaia -- I often think this idea may yet emerge as being accepted as accurate by future herstorians.

The Mother is the source of magic and shamanism. Many feel she is returning. Happy Mothers' Day !
flyaway:
:sign12: :flower: :albino:

Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 11:02 pm
by Ragnar
Hello, sorry I have joined this a bit late, we were away over the weekend.
Na, I know that Tacitus in his "Germania", wrote of one tribe inparticulat that they were "degraded, for they held women to be the chiefs, and allowed them to be warriors".
From what can be gathered by the geographical historians, this was probably around Sigtuna and northwards of Stockholm. There is also evidence of other tribes that held women in at least equal esteem with men. One Viking raid on Britain was recorded as bieng led by a sea QUEEN and the ships were totaly crewed by women. As to women in Norse religion/spirituality, I do not have to point out the importance of women in shamanism here. Allthough Odin discovered the runes, to perform magic, the Gods normally had to consult with, borrow totem shapes from, or even dress up as, women.

Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 1:07 am
by Rain ForestMoon
Just a question:

Why is there a need for the divine to be male of female?

Why not both?

Or Neither???

Blessings

Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 1:52 am
by Rain ForestMoon
That should have read "Male OR Female"... sorry about that, chief.

Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 3:30 am
by Ragnar
Interesting point. We believe that Odin does not exist...(!!??). Odinn is the spirit of ALL the Gods and Godesses working together for an end result. So I would say you are entirely correct.
As to the male/female thing, I think it boils down to the way in which men and women think differently, so this will, of course, effect the way in which we approach magic, the divine, etc. Niether one is more valid or invalid than the other. Without working together Odinn can not exist, see first para.
But, does this mean we have different aims to our workings? Or different paths to the same results? Oh dear, I appear to be slightly confused, I will go and take my medicine, whilst you all think for me.

a matrix?

Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 12:07 pm
by dragonflydrummer
What would a "neither" god/goddess be like? Maybe a machine or like that... hmmm... Could be....? [-o<

Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 11:16 pm
by Ragnar
Like the contents of all good bottles, pure spirit I suppose...?
Na, then we are in danger of returning to the religion/spirituality discussion.

Posted: Fri May 13, 2005 6:52 am
by dragonflydrummer
Rain ForestMoon asked:
Why not both?
Yeah -- it is strange that there aren't more dual- or bi-sexual deities. The Greco-Roman tradition had the Hermaphrodite -- but I'm not sure that qualifies as a full-bore Deity. I guess a deity that is both would be hard to relate to -- but I bet there are a few out there.

Gender just seems to be a very powerful inherent feature in the Goddess/Gods of virtually all traditions. Prob'ly because there are real inherent differences in gender, but also 'cause sex is so important a preoccupation for all us little monkeys here below...

:laughing4: :female: :laughing8: :male: :laughing5: