Sexism in contemporary occulture
By Psyche | February 15, 2010 | Print This Post | E-mail This Post | 79 Comments
Sexism is a topic that came up in a forum I recently started participating in. None contested that it was endemic in occulture, but few seemed interested in exploring why this was.
I know women1 who have been asked “who are you here with?” when they attended events. Several have had men try to “explain” technical points to them, unprompted. In my own experience, after choosing a stone to represent an element at a gathering, I overheard a man complain that I should not have been “allowed” to choose Fire.
The most common reaction reaction to the above was a dropped jaw and a private resolution to never attend such events again.2 And they don’t. Yet many (men, usually) seem bewildered by low attendance of women in their group/temple/lodges.
We have lost essential voices of dedicated magickians because they were treated poorly and edged out of the public sphere. They post profound things in friends-locked spaces on LiveJournal, are brilliant on IM, in private conversation and other “safe” spaces where they won’t be shut down. Few publish books, and those that do stick to other “safe” topics like occult biography and history. 3
How did we let this happen? What can be done about it?
Footnotes:
- We’re going with a gender binary here because that encompasses most (all?) of the people I know who have been in these situations, but apply the sentiment elsewhere as necessary, and please do provide feedback if this doesn’t fit your experience, or you have something to add that relates. [back]
- I made a point of speaking to the man handing out the stones. [back]
- Mary K Greer’s Women of the Golden Dawn: Rebels and Priestesses
was excellent and much needed, but can you name a single contemporary female author who’s written about the Golden Dawn from a practitioner’s perspective? Alex Owen’s The Place of Enchantment
Psyche is the editor of ahrfoundation.org and the curator for the occult resource SpiralNature.com, Psyche also operates a tarot consultation business, Psyche Tarot. She has been published in The Cauldron, Konton, newWitch, Blessed Be, Tarot World Magazine and her essay “Strategic Magick” appeared in Manifesting Prosperity: A Wealth Magic Anthology, published by Megalithica Books in February 2008.
Psyche's website is http://www.ahrfoundation.org.
Where I am from, there are many women occultists, and also a lot of feminist men. I have seen a couple instances where a guy was being sexist, and the result was swift justice and strong education for that guy. For months, and months, it was all he heard about.
But I’m sure sexism still probably happens in more subtle ways. 4000 years of sexist dualism is a pretty strong egregore to dispel.
Bottom line, occultists have got to stop confusing the planes. Women too. People seem to think it is somehow feminist to say that women are goddesses and men are gods, with their unique qualities. This is not really feminist, and it entrenches sexism.
The fact that male and female bodies lend themselves to symbolize metaphysical concepts of gender does not mean there is any other correlation between these two planes. My body can symbolize the metaphysical masculine, but I am a spiritual androgyne. AS IS EVERYONE.
Women are not goddesses with solely female goddess-like qualities. Men are not gods with solely male god-like qualities.
Each of us is an androgynous god with qualities of both sexes.
“Every man and every woman is a star.”
That’s not to say that we have to do away with the idea of gender or playing with gender. Far from it.
I also think it is fair to include considerations of gender or sex for specific symbolic purpose. For example requiring that for a specific ritual, the person in the West is a woman or whatever, that is fine too.
What is not fine is to suggest that this is a reflection of the nature of men or women. That is to confuse the planes.
Gender play and identity can lead us to metaphysics, but this process should not be reversed, with gender in metaphysics being used to dictate human roles.
We have got to understand that in our essence, all these genders and personae of gods and goddesses are contained within each and every one of us, and that we are all simultaneously generative and reflective beings.
This I agree strongly with, especially given the classical modes often used.
Though I confess I’m not clear on what you mean by “the planes”. The phrase gets used in so many different circumestances; could you please clarify a little?
Fair to whom? Why does proscribing a certain gender in such a role in this instance seem acceptable, given your statements above and below this?
“I’m not clear on what you mean by ‘the planes’. The phrase gets used in so many different circumestances; could you please clarify a little?”
I’m talking about the fact that people think that metaphysical theories using gender metaphors have some kind of connection to gender roles that humans should adopt.
“Why does proscribing a certain gender in such a role in this instance seem acceptable, given your statements above and below this?”
Because they are using their bodies as symbols of something else and it has nothing to do with who or what they are as individuals.
Your statements here are contradictory. How do you reconcile them?
They aren’t actually contradictory at all. Not sure what you think I am saying, so no idea how to offer a correction.
You seem to be suggesting that men and women are the same “on the inside” on some mystical level, yet whatever bodies they happen to be in are polarized into a binary gender bias that must be expressed mystically. I don’t understand how you reconcile that.
By the way I neglected to mention, in communities where I find myself, where Aleister Crowley is actually studied, I find there to be a pretty equal number of men and women, and any sexist ideas are openly and regularly denounced. So what you describe in the top post sounds very alien to me though I have been actively part of occulture for 20 years.
Another thought occurred to me which might help to explain my perspective on the idea that it’s fine to say in a specific ritual, the woman should be in the west or whatever. I think it is fine to do that just as it is fine to have another ritual where the woman is in the east. And another where gender doesn’t figure into it at all. I think we should be free to do any and all these things, as I said playing and identifying with gender as we will, because it doesn’t somehow mean that the nature of people is being prescribed. Rather, the symbolism of the human body is being used in the ritual.
Actually the reverse seems far more likely; people who didn’t know better ascribed metaphysical traits to biological realities.
That kind of symbolic (purely symbolic) relation between reality and abstract concept (i.e. biological sex and cultural gender roles)is par for the course in occultism even when we aren’t dealing with concepts that as directly impact real human beings and the dynamics between them. A.O. Spare’s Alphabet of Desire is largely built on this working foundation as an example.
Asserting that our bodies have lent themselves to express metaphysical truths about the universe is exactly what entrenches sexism in occult practices.
Following up with a wishy washy caveat about all of us containing male and female characteristics only further entrenches it as the bulk of what defines gender assignment to a particular characteristic are sexist cultural mores about what it is to be a man or a woman. Moreover since a female bodied person will always be seen as essentially female it is, whether intended or not, foisting a gender role on someone whether they want it or not.
In other words it the reasoning that caused that man to tell Psyche she shouldn’t be allowed to choose fire, and why you think it’s acceptable, or advantageous in any way to decree that a woman should be in the west.
Stripping the gender associations from characteristics symbolically represented as water or fire is an idea whose time should have come long ago. Unfortunately the backwards attachment to traditions that are demonstrably elaborate fictions, and indiscriminate adoration of misogynist occult philosophers keeps it from being so by the bulk of occulture.
The fact that so many occultists think of themselves as bastions of liberty or as forward thinkers yet cling tenaciously to the baggage of 15th century reinventions of iron age mythologies should be a source of embarrassment to the occult community…unfortunately as is that kind of tenaciousness is more likely rewarded and institutionalized.
According to your opener, that’s exactly what you’re advocating by making the baseless claim that male and female bodies are symbols of metaphysical realities.
All of magick is done by biological human creatures. We dictate the metaphysical rules, they are not self evident, nor is there any evidence to suggest any kind of supernatural gender binary inherent to the universe.
These concepts are fictional objects for our imagination (call it ‘will’ if you prefer) to work against. From that creative friction/fiction comes the magick.
“Asserting that our bodies have lent themselves to express metaphysical truths about the universe is exactly what entrenches sexism in occult practices.”
No, it’s just using what we observe in nature as metaphors and models to explain metaphysical and esoteric concepts which need symbols. Everything we observe lends itself to be used in exactly this way.
“Following up with a wishy washy caveat about all of us containing male and female characteristics only further entrenches it as the bulk of what defines gender assignment to a particular characteristic are sexist cultural mores about what it is to be a man or a woman.”
Actually it’s not a caveat, it’s my point, that we are all androgyne.
“Moreover since a female bodied person will always be seen as essentially female it is, whether intended or not, foisting a gender role on someone whether they want it or not.”
I think I said repeatedly and clearly above that I do not see female-bodied people as essentially female.
“In other words it the reasoning that caused that man to tell Psyche she shouldn’t be allowed to choose fire, and why you think it’s acceptable, or advantageous in any way to decree that a woman should be in the west.”
Actually you don’t know what his reasoning was, do you?
My reason for saying that it is acceptable is precisely because I don’t think that making a ritual symbolism decision based on the shapes of the bodies of the ritualists has anything to do with their essential beings. Putting someone in a role in a ritual because they symbolize something is not a prescription for how they should think of, or conduct themselves in everyday life.
“Stripping the gender associations from characteristics symbolically represented as water or fire is an idea whose time should have come long ago.”
Good luck with that.
“…making the baseless claim that male and female bodies are symbols of metaphysical realities.”
You appear to have misunderstood. I actually only claim that male and female bodies are used as symbols in hermetic metaphysics. Which is fine, and I think actually impossible to avoid. It is when those symbols are confused for realities, and metaphysical concepts of gender are prescribed to people, then the problem emerges.
“All of magick is done by biological human creatures. We dictate the metaphysical rules, they are not self evident, nor is there any evidence to suggest any kind of supernatural gender binary inherent to the universe.”
No argument whatsoever.
What who observes? What are we observing?
I don’t think that’s a concept that’s well understood, and it’s often abused. I’ll leave this aside for now, there’s more I need to consider about this. I’ve just been recommended some books which may help clear my thinking on this, as it’s something I’m not as well versed as I’d like to be. If you’re interested in checking it out too, one specific title is Kari Weil’s Androgyny and the Denial of Difference.
In light of this:
Why do you feel that someone in a female body must “symbolize something” that is abstract and not actually tied to sex or gender? It’s contradictory.
What value does labelling certian traits “feminine” or “masculine” have, overall?
Really? You can’t think of a better way to organize data structures without resorting to an arbitrary gender binary? How often does this symbolism actually relate to anything practical or real-world based?
Just to answer your direct questions here:
By “we” I was referring to human beings.
I’m sure you know what you observe.
As I explained previously, at length, this is not what I feel.
That is not what I said.
Never, nor does any esoteric symbolism. That’s what makes it, you know, esoteric.
Then what you’re suggesting here is tantamount to occult sudoku?
It fits because it fits, but doesn’t really have any meaning?
It has meaning, just only certain kinds of meaning and not others. Symbols refer to other symbols and generate a complex nexus of meaning through their relationships to each other.
I want to address a few things you mention Samm Hain, they don’t really advance the topic of solutions but are rather confusing statements. First: “…by making the baseless claim that male and female bodies are symbols of metaphysical realities.” That this is baseless goes against the classic hermetic axiom, “as above, so below.” Which countless amounts of Western occultism is based on (yeah yeah 15th century reinventions of iron age mythologies.. never the less not baseless).
The claim that there is no inherent connection between symbols on the metaphysical and physical world also throws 1000s of years of philosophy out the window.
What about taoism, chinese medicine, the qabalah, some aspects of western herbal medcine etc. All these bodies of thought rely on the idea that there is a connection between a metaphysical symbol and its phsysical correlate (women = yin, men = yang). Are they all irrelevant?
Not that I am trying to justify the thinking that a women shouldn’t be fire. But sexism can be dealt with, without destroying all tradition.
Not only irrelevant, but based on outdated models of what it means to be male and female.
Can we not recognize that historically, women were thought to be passive, nurturing, encompassing ideals, while recognizing that today’s women are so much more than this, and that men can be these things, too?
“Not only irrelevant, but based on outdated models of what it means to be male and female. ”
If this is true then your making an incredible claim and dooming all this tradition to being useless. Which I would disagree with. Especially in terms of systems like Chinese Medicine. I have had great success at various points by going to a herbalist. What I was given was based on the idea that I was by nature Yang, and my Yin was out of balance. If there wasn’t some sort of correlation between the physical and metaphysical then it wouldn’t work.
As for the historical ideal of women I am not saying that women are always the ideal of feminity and I am not making the claim that the manifestation of these traditions always worked in the purely physical world. I am only claiming that there isn’t anything wrong with seeing a connection between gender on the physical/metaphysical plane. But as Joseph points seeing the ideal as being the actual is a case of confusing the planes.
Leaving aside the “planes” (which I questioned again above – it truly does not make sense to me), let’s look at the irrationality of imposing sexual symbolism on abstract concepts:
The yin/yang system is based on a wealth of dualities, passive/active, positive/negative, north/south, shady/sunny, etc. – how essential do you think the female/male distinction is? How does it relate to the realities of what it means to be a woman or a man?
I have to start a new thread to respond to this, I can’t deal with these super skinny columns…
Had to start a new thread to continue from above – the narrow columns strike again!
Psyche wrote:
Right. This comes right from the Thelemic conception of the soul and its parts (Khabs, Khu, & Ka). The Phallus manifests physically as two different organs: the lingam and yoni, which are equally generative. This idea has existed throughout the long history of phallus worship – see e.g. Payne-Knight where Phallae are pictured in both forms, and in the conjoining of the two. This is the generative principle existing in equal share in men and women. In past Aeons we tended to attribute the power of generation either to the man or the woman, but in the new aeon it is attributed to both – to the Crowned and Conquering Child.
Not “must” but “is expressed mystically.” It is natural and unavoidable that any and every defining feature of our realities will be utilized as symbolism in some way to express esoteric and revelatory ideas. Sex is a universal experience and the source of our power to exist as a species; of course sex will be used symbolically.
When we take things in nature and use them as symbols for ideas, that is fine of course insofar as they express the ideas we are trying to convey. If I say this tennis ball represents the Earth and this, I dunno something something, represents the sun: that does not mean that I am suggesting the Earth is bouncy and yellow. This is analogous to the error people make: that because we take a man or a woman and use them in a ritual to represent some idea of metaphysical gender polarity, this does not mean that the idea is suggestive of the nature of those people, any more so than the earth is yellow and bouncy. It’s just a very simple logical error.
So I think it is it is fine to say, “in this ritual a woman will stand in the west,” because that is only saying, “in this context the west is feminine and we symbolize that with a woman, the shape of whose parts are symbolic of the feminine in nature.” It does not logically follow to then say “Because the woman goes in the west, that means that women have all the west-like attributes to the exclusion of the east-like attributes” or whatever.
So the person who said you are not allowed to be fire: was he being sexist? Or was he simply trying to preserve the internal consistency of the symbolism of the ritual? The story you tell doesn’t seem to give enough details to know the answer to this question.
You might be right and he might have been sexist, or perhaps the ritual called for it. Perhaps he wouldn’t object at all to your performing another ritual where you are fire.
If he was objecting to you being fire because he felt it conflicted with your nature, that is something else.
I hope I have succeeded in making myself more clear.
No, but it must mean something for it to be meaningful. I’m arguing that tacking gender on to abstract principles, such as the elements, is ultimately arbitrary and meaningless. It has no meaning to say that Fire “is” male. It carries no information. It ought to be discarded.
In what meaningful context is West feminine? What does that mean?
I don’t want history, or tautological explanations, I’d like an honest and practical response, if possible.
Using a tennis ball to represent the Earth is not a commentary on the nature of the Earth.
I get that. You’re not listening to me.
If we were talking about an actual ritual with actual meaning and actual context I’m sure I could answer you. But we aren’t, and that was an arbitrary example. If you don’t grasp the concept of having symbolic context and internal consistency between symbolism and the metaphysics of the system you are using then I don’t think I can help.
And here I thought you wanted to understand my perspective as I was attempting to share it. I put some time into thinking about how to explain to you some of my deepest convictions and you imply this is impractical, dishonest tautology mixed with history. Well, suddenly I have no motivation to respond to you. So, good luck with everything.
I understand what you’re saying, I don’t understand what you mean.
Let’s use your tennis ball/Earth example.
When you’re representing the Earth with a tennis ball, what information are you trying to convey?
Saying “I’m comparing them” isn’t an explanation, it doesn’t tell me why or what to do with that information.
Elsewhere the excuse “because it’s always been that way” (and variations thereof) have been used. This is what I intend with “I don’t want history”. It’s tautological to say “we do it this way because we’ve always done it this way”.
Sensible people ought to have reasons for what they believe and why they do the things they do. Do you disagree?
For example using the tennis ball to represent the Earth and a grape to represent the moon, in a visual explanation of how eclipses happen. Doing this does not suddenly imbue the tennis ball with Earth-like qualities nor does it suggest that tennis balls were made to represent the Earth.
Using a tennis ball to represent the Earth is convenient and arbitrary for making some communication about the Earth which needs a handheld symbol of the Earth.
That’s textbook tautology for you.
My opinion on this subject is that the world of practising occultists is a microcosmic representation of the greater world, in which we’re still suffering from centuries of entrenched inequality. This is a pattern we can break and are breaking in many ways.
I’m currently reading a biography of Crowley in which he describes beating his mountaineering porters and later his wife because he considered himself to be their “moral superior” as a colonialist Englishman.
Fortunately this behaviour seems anachronistic and disgusting today, which makes me think we’re evolving toward a greater understanding that no one can fairly believe themselves to be anyone else’s spiritual or moral superior.
Ultimately I think it’s up to us female occultists (and enlightened supportive men) to demand our place by continuing to discuss and publish and make our presence felt without becoming shrill and acting like victims – we just need to display our confidence and competence unapologetically until any lingering regressive opinions die out.
It might take some time, but I believe we can do it. I’ve seen progress in this respect in my working life (in a field no longer dominated by men where I have no problem being accepted because I’m good at my job) and I’ve seen it gradually in North American society as a whole. As long as we don’t hide our light, eventually our contributions will be accepted.
I’ve been observing human dynamics from a primatologist’s perspective ever since I read The Naked Ape – our societies are not that different from other ape groups where dominant males maintain control and are allowed to do so by the other members of the group. If we change our group’s consensus reality to evolve toward a more egalitarian way of doing things, eventually we’ll get there. It may upset some of the more alpha male types who don’t want the established order to change, but if they’re truly seeking spiritual growth they’ll have to accept this shift in the group’s reality tunnel and either embrace it or learn to live with it.
I would actually argue that contemporary occultism is several generations behind secular culture when it comes to gender and sexual equality, though I certainly agree that we’ve a ways to go on both fronts.
Agreed, absolutely. But many feel threatened by what they’ve experienced in the past, and others seem concerned with displaying the very traits you’ve mentioned: appearing “shrill”, being victimized, even appearing “feminist”, as if it’s a dirty word (“equalist”, if you prefer). How do we combat this and maintain our integrity?
I would love to devise a ritual that would allow a first-hand, experiential understanding of how it feels to be discriminated against based on gender.
I got this idea after watching my late husband playing World of Warcraft using a female character. In his everyday life as a alpha male belonging to a racial majority group, he had never experientially understood what sexual discrimination felt like, even though we’d discussed it many times and he generally cultivated compassion for others.
His female WoW character was an eye-opener for him. He was shocked to discover that, I quote, “It’s always assumed that you’re not the leader even though my character is the highest level in the group”. This, understandably, rankled for him the same way it does for women when we’re confronted by it but it was the first time he really grokked the unfairness of it.
A well-designed ritual where gender is temporarily disguised to give people a glimpse into the “other side”, with some sort of shocking revelation at the end would be ideal.
That would be interesting to see. If you get a chance to do that I would love to hear about the results.
I used to get a sort of reverse version of that online. Despite the obviously female handle “Psyche”, people would respond to what I wrote quoting “he”. It seemed to be a mind-bender for some that I wasn’t actually male, as I “sound” male to some online.
I’ve since made a point of posting my picture in “About” sections because the confusion annoys me. I’m still trying to puzzle out precisely why it annoys me, which is a whole ‘nuther (though related) issue.
One thing that is important to keep in mind is that Crowley was not just a sexist, but a misogynist. Some of his contemporaries managed to opine on things metaphysical without all the woman hating, racism, or weird homosexual hang ups.
It’s tempting to forgive Crowley his excesses because he was a relic of his times, but he does not deserve that leniency, especially not when you consider that people like Emma Goldman and Peter Kropotkin were writing during his lifetime.
Whatever advances to the techniques of magic Crowley made, his value begins and ends there and it is to a great degree that people take him seriously when opined about ideas like liberty or gender that sexism (among other tendencies) are so rampant in occulture…indeed as Psyche noted even more entrenched in occulture than they are in the world made up by people many occultists glibly refer to as sheep.
Maybe being thought of as a man because of your “voice” annoys you because of the obvious gender stereotyping going on with that assumption; that if someone is rational and authoritative, they must be male. Or maybe it is because you want equality and want your genius to be recognized as coming from the female gender.
That’s probably a part of it, as is knowing that once I’ve “outed myself”, I will be responded to differently, and what I say will be read in a different light. I hate that this happens.
We actually discussed this at the Women’s Voices in Magic panel at PantheaCon this weekend. Part of the reason I dropped out of the chaos magic conversation a few years ago was because I was sick of the dick fencing (and name-dropping competitions in which whoever made the most obscure reference wins) taking the place of people actually doing magickal work. I can count on one hand, and maybe a couple of spare fingers, the number of female practitioners who tried getting involved at the same time, and I routinely saw us all subjected to being ignored, patronized, or objectified in a way the boys never were. I was only involved for a couple of years in the mid-2000′s, but Amy Hale was on the panel with me and she said her experience a decade prior, to include things like the Z-cluster, was pretty much the same.
The z(Cluster)? I was routinely and repeatedly mistaken for a male there, to the extent that after posting something on Facebook, one zee responded with “See! I knew you were really a man!” But I don’t recall any other examples of sexism on-list, but we are talking more than ten years ago.
What do you think we can do to counteract this?
I think Beth W.’s solution below works pretty damned well. The overarching problem is being treated differently because we’re women. Even if that treatment is supposedly “good”, it’s still different for an arbitrary, and ultimately useless, purpose.
My take: People attracted to the Western magickal tradition (and maybe Thelema and Chaos Magick especially) probably on some level are hoping that magick can correct feelings of powerlessness. This may (as in, almost certainly does) activate some dominance circuit, sometimes with pretty shitty results in terms of personality. I would guess that for most heterosexual men, this dominance circuit naturally reacts even more strongly to women than to other men. That might not be the whole story, but I think it’s at least part of the picture.
I don’t know what “the solution” might be. What’s your take on female-exclusive groups? Does this tend to genuinely strengthen the women involved, or does it just add to the overall gender gap? Should men and women always be together in mixed groups for all operations? Is it possible to have a larger group that breaks off into gender-based sub-groups at times?
The problem with female-exclusive groups is, while allowing women to be among those who presumably won’t demean them, it does nothing to expose both genders to the accomplishments, ideas, and goals of female occultists. And we’ve had enough time spent on hushing female occultists’ voices.
The “solution” is for women to be out there — to lead, to write and publish, to practice, to talk about their practice, to organize, and to include men in all of those so they can serve as examples. Nothing eases stereotypes and old thinking like lots and lots and LOTS of exposure to counter-examples. Once you live with something day to day, you can begin to wrap your head around it.
This blog needs a “like” feature. Huzzah to this comment.
93,
In my personal experience, there have been many women involved with occulture, especially in the context of Thelema. I have recently seen many female-centered publications & events which seem to be indicative of a growing trend of females being accepted within the general occulture. Also, I personally know many women who are involved, and the ones who complain of male-dominance often have one experience in particular (or one bad apple in mind). Re: the guy who insisted you couldn’t be fire, there are always going to be short-sighted idiots… But you can’t let that taint your view of an entire culture or sex imo.
93 93/93
Good points. There are certainly bad apples in every barrel especially where it concerns sexism.
Your response here seems dismissive. Why should there always be short-sighted idiots? What you’re saying here amounts to “suck it up”, and doesn’t really discuss the problem at hand, or what can be done about it.
The problem is very real, and extends beyond the few examples I’ve mentioned. Just because you, yourself have not experienced it (and why would you?) do not assume it’s not happening.
Are you suggesting that men do not experience or witness sexism? Come on.
I could suggest that as no men in my community have approached me with this problem, it must not be happening, or if it does, it’s just a “fringe element”. But that would be most unladylike. ;)
Instead I will ask what your experience has been. In all seriousness, I am interested in exploring this topic from all angles, though in my (limited, gender-biased) experience, objectification, dismissal and so forth have been largely endured by women.
93,
There will always be short-sighted idiots because I studied psychology and politics. That’s just how society functions. We certainly are not currently on an upward arc towards 100% enlightenment on social issues, especially in Amurrika.
I’m not saying ‘suck it up’ but rather saying ‘you are exaggerating the problem at hand.’
Also it would be absurd for me to speak of something OUTSIDE my experience so I told you that, in my experience, this just isn’t true. Was anyone at Pantheacon recently? Im guessing there were 1.5 women for every man.
How is this problem ‘very real?’ What makes it ‘very real’? That some fat pagan made some off the cuff remark about you not being able to be fire and you get offended? Are female women being physically mentally or emotionally abused by occult members other than the normal social misfits who cause trouble anyhow?
93 93/93
IAO131
How can yo suggest this when every single woman who has responded to a comment here has directly experienced misogyny at an occult event? When the men agree that it occurs, but that it’s a “fringe element” does not address the problem, but attempts to push it into a dark corner where it doesn’t get addressed or examined further. That is not helpful.
Early on, when there were few responses, I passed the link on to a woman friend and said I thought she might be interested to weigh in. She wrote back and said that if she were to relate her opinion here, all the other women would invalidate it and there’s no point. She the suggested that I was wasting my time too. I think she was right.
It’s not just isolated events. It is systematic, ongoing, consistent patterns of oppressive communication and unspoken messages that leave women with the impression that we are not wanted/lesser participants/otherwise not participating in the same way as men.
I spoke above about why I got the fuck out of “occulture”. It’s about routinely being ignored when I’m talking about actual magickal work I’ve done, while men who are simply name-dropping and trying to come up with the most obscure subcultural references get all the attention. It’s about all the times when Taylor Ellwood, my (now-ex) husband and I would go to events together and people (mostly men) would interact with him but not me. It’s when they assume he had more to do with our cowritten book, “Kink Magic” than I did. It’s about people not seeing what the issue with the Maiden Mother Crone thing is.
And it’s about men silencing women’s complaints by diverting us with “well, men experience such-and-such, too”. Yes, but it’s not an institutionalized part of society in the same way that oppression of women is, and while I feel very strongly for my male friends, family and acquaintances who have been through oppressive situations, statistically speaking women are much more likely to experience these things, and we’re expected to prepare ourselves for it from day one.
Indeed, Lupa. I think that there are many instance of sexism that some men just are not able to recognize as sexist behavior. Even the most equality minded gents I know will occasionally slip into “explaining something to the girl” mode. It may also translate into creating the conditions for women to not wanting to contribute to the discussion or just being ignored or talked over. I think many men genuinely don’t realize when this is occurring. And the silencing complaints thing is getting pretty old.
CONTINUED — psyche vs. zerozero
The easiest way I could point out the essentials of it is by bringing up the vagina vs. penis, also estrogen vs. testosterone. These differences require a categorization into different qualities. Yin does make sense to be connected to birth, it is a very passive form of creation. It takes time and moves slowly. The creation of semen and ejaculation is the opposite.
But here is where there is miscommunication. Because I am not saying this justifies poor behavior by men. I am just saying that we don’t need to throw our baby of occult symbols out with the bath water. What I am getting at is that just because a woman can be symbolized by Yin, doesn’t make her passive, negative and shady. Certain aspects of her body are just adequately symbolized by Yin and these aspects can’t be changed (and they work well within the symbolism). If someone is a dick to you and uses an excuse that because you are close to the yin principle or because you are more like water and earth: blah blah blah, you should kick them in the nuts. That is also an example of ‘confusing the planes.’ By which is meant when someone says something metaphysical is something physical (or vice versa), instead of just realizing there is some latent connection between them (here earth is made up of gritty soil that plants grow in, there earth is a force slow moving, it is linked to cold and dry). Ie: women shouldn’t represent fire, when all humans are ‘metaphysically’ made up of earth, air, fire and water. Just as all humans are both yin and yang, just more yin or more yang depending on certain things.
Are we “versus”? I thought this was a conversation?
Your biological analogy doesn’t hold up in light of the physical realities of our bodies. My body produces testosterone, does the fact that it produces less than the average male make this disappear?
Is this male imagery deliberate, unconscious or simply ironic?
I find this very contradictory. If we are all made up of the same elements, why pretend that some are “more male” or “more female” than others? What does it really mean for an element – or any abstract esoteric principle – to be “female” or “male”?
I’m in agreement with ZeroZero in general, although I don’t like some of his arguments.
Personally I prefer the words feminine and masculine to female and male. It’s a linguistic thing, but I think it makes a point that I’m referring to qualities as they are associated with symbolic genders, not actual physical gender.
The universe starts out as something very simple. Before physical matter and energy, before intelligence, before any of that we have the spark of creation. Three important things occur, without precedence, at creation. First we have the spark of creation, which is the first singularity. Then we have the first division, which is the first duality. And this is different than what existed prior to the spark, which is the first triplicity. Everything in the universe builds upon this act. From here things get more and more complex as we build upon them. However nothing else occurs without precedence. Everything we add has to be built with what came before it. When we try to understand things esoterically, we start paring them down, removing layers, and reducing them to their simplest forms. Ultimately everything gets defined by these ideals of creation, division, singularity, duality, and triplicity.
The idea of duality is one of the core ideas of the universe, and the masculine and feminine forces are one the simplest and most effective expressions of that idea. The spark, Kether under the Kabalah system, creates itself. It is the active force in the universe, the singular creationary force. The first division, Thamiuel in the Kabalah, is a passive force, and a creationary force via its union with the spark. We refer to these two primal forces as the masculine and feminine forces, respectfully. Everything that comes after has to be built off what exists in these two initial forces, and so everything must be either masculine, or feminine, or both.
In fact when we break down physical gender, only in regards to biological procreative functions during sex, the man’s role is masculine and the woman’s role is feminine. The man is the active force. He has to achieve an erection, he has to enter the female, and he has to achieve ejaculation. The female is the passive force. She is entered into. She receives the ejaculate from the male. She doesn’t have to lubricate herself, she doesn’t have to orgasm, she’ll get pregnant just the same.
The very core of gender, in fact what defines it, is ones biological function in procreation. And this is what defines masculine as active and feminine as passive. It has nothing to do with the role of men and women, their personalities, or their functions in society, and everything to do with the very thing that actually makes them men and women.
However most things aren’t going to be absolute. In fact the only things that are going to be entirely masculine and feminine are the first spark and the first division. Everything else is going to be a mixture of the two. So we define things as masculine and feminine based on which force it leans more towards, or in some instances as directly in the middle of the two not leaning in either direction. In the same way we classify things as belonging to the five elements based on which element they’re moreso made up of than the others.
Now my question, how is any of this sexist in any way? If we believe that masculine and feminine are two very real and opposite things, but at the same time concede that both are inherent in all people, that most people are just more masculine than feminine or vice-versa, and that this has nothing to do physical gender, how is this sexist?
In my mind feminism, real feminism, is about promoting women to a position of equality in all matters and sustaining that position, and seeing that people of both genders have equal opportunities in all regards. This belief in no way promotes inequality or denying anyone opportunities. Quite the opposite, this belief states that a woman may be very masculine in her nature and a man may be very feminine in his. In fact this promotes what is at the core of feminism, and any other ism based in equality, that people can only be judged as individuals based on their individual merits.
The versus thing was just to get your attention… it was otherwise meaningless.
Rob has a good point. Using Masculine and Feminine is much more concise and better able to convey the ideas. I was fairly sick while writing all this, so I was not being as articulate as I possibly could…
I like merit as well! Rob what you wrote is excellent, far better than my attempt.
What distinction are you making between “physical gender” and “symbolic gender”, and why? I’ve read your comment several times, and I still can’t parse it out.
This is offensive on many levels, especially as the analogy you’re offering here amounts to rape. The “lie back and think of England” approach to sex is conditioned, not natural. When sex is engaged in, it’s by (at least) two active participants – if not, you are doing it wrong.
The woman does not simply “receive ejaculate” and that’s the end of it, if she does become pregnant, she choses whether to bear the child to term, or cease the pregnancy.
Additionally, the heteronormative example you’re giving does not match reality for a significant portion of people. When two women have sex, it’s not for procreation. When two men have sex, it’s not for procreation.
Sex is about more than making life, or choosing not to. It’s first and foremost about pleasure. The aim is to achieve orgasm every time, not to create offspring. That it occasionally does (and no, it’s not a 100% guarantee), is bonus, and why we’ve evolved the way we have. Do you perceive an “imbalance in the force” when you masturbate, or does it just feel kinda nice?
Your discussion of the “first spark” and the gender binary you believe results is abstract mysticism that doesn’t have much foundation. It may work well for you as UPG (unverified personal gnosis), but I remain unconvinced of its value.
[quote]What distinction are you making between “physical gender” and “symbolic gender”, and why? I’ve read your comment several times, and I still can’t parse it out.[/quote]
That your physical gender has no bearing on the gender associative qualities you may or may not possess. This seems to be an issue you keep bringing up here, and in your next post on the elements. You think that it’s implied because a specific quality is associated as masculine or male that it can’t be possessed of a female, which is one of your gripes. This is simply untrue, and the basic concepts surrounding gender correspondences do, and have always, been clear that this is untrue. ie a woman can be defined as fiery even though the element of fire is masculine, it just means that she is defined by a masculine trait.
[quote]This is offensive on many levels, especially as the analogy you’re offering here amounts to rape. [/quote]
No, it is not offensive. You choose to view it in a context that makes it offensive to you. I only stated easily verifiable factual information about the reproductive process and how it works.
As for rape, rape is defined as non-consensual, or at least occurring in a situation where there is some legally defined impairment that negates consent. I never breached the topic of consent, therefor I never could have approached anything related to rape. Consent is inconsequential to the argument at hand anyways. We’re talking about how procreation happens, and that happens regardless of consent.
[quote]The “lie back and think of England” approach to sex is conditioned, not natural. When sex is engaged in, it’s by (at least) two active participants – if not, you are doing it wrong. [/quote]
I’ve always been of the opinion that there isn’t a right or wrong way to have sex. If someone wants to just lie on their back, I don’t see how it’s any of my business, or yours. I’m also curious where you’re getting your information about the right and wrong ways that everyone should be having sex.
[quote]The woman does not simply “receive ejaculate” and that’s the end of it, if she does become pregnant, she choses whether to bear the child to term, or cease the pregnancy.[/quote]
The procreative process can be terminated after it has started (and not just by the mother either). This is relevant how?
[quote]Additionally, the heteronormative example you’re giving does not match reality for a significant portion of people. When two women have sex, it’s not for procreation. When two men have sex, it’s not for procreation.[/quote]
My example matches reality for everyone. I was talking about procreation, and I made that very clear in my initial argument. I was never talking about homosexual sex because procreation isn’t going to happen there. And if a homosexual does engage in heterosexual sex, all things being equal, they can procreate.
Why am I talking about procreation, because our role in the procreative process is what defines our physical gender. Not cultural or societal views, not our genetic make-up, and not what we feel we truly are inside. This is a clear, concise, absolute, and the oldest definition of gender, whether we’re discussing humans or any other species.
The question being, why are certain things associated to a particular gender. To answer that we go back to what the most basic and correct definition of each gender is, and that lies with procreation.
[quote]Sex is about more than making life, or choosing not to. It’s first and foremost about pleasure.[/quote]
Once again, I wonder what authority you’re using to decide what sex is first and foremost about for everyone.
It’s inconsequential to my argument though. I was never discussing sex and everything it encompasses. I was discussing procreation, and I mentioned sex only because it is related to procreation, and the method of procreation within our species.
[quote]The aim is to achieve orgasm every time, not to create offspring. That it occasionally does (and no, it’s not a 100% guarantee), is bonus, and why we’ve evolved the way we have.[/quote]
Sex is done for many, many, many reasons, pleasure being only one reason. Procreation is another big one. There are others too.
About the whole orgasm thing, I’m just lost on that. For one, it assumes you’re having sex for a pleasurable reason, and not some other reason. Even then though, I’d have to completely disagree. Trying to achieve orgasm creates pressure and tension, which takes away from the pleasure of the act and actually makes orgasm less likely and lessens it when it does occur. Meanwhile orgasm encompasses one small aspect of sex, and a focus on orgasm takes focus away from the intimacy and other pleasurable aspects of the act. An attitude of sharing intimacy with your partner, and exploring and enjoying each other, generally brings better results than trying reach orgasm.
It’s just my opinion though. Like I said before, it’s none of my business what other people want to do.
[quote]Your discussion of the “first spark” and the gender binary you believe results is abstract mysticism that doesn’t have much foundation. It may work well for you as UPG (unverified personal gnosis), but I remain unconvinced of its value.[/quote]
Well, actually it does have quite a bit of foundation. The idea of the first spark and its division are essential ideas in Kabalah, which in turn is a major influence on the western magical tradition. We see that same act expressed again and again in different ways throughout many other belief systems, Taoism being one that has been specifically named in this thread.
“No, it is not offensive. You choose to view it in a context that makes it offensive to you.”
Ah, so it’s Psyche’s fault? Psyche has decided to be offended?
Do you not think that it’s possible that you have, deliberately or otherwise, presented sex only in a fashion that supports your view? Yes you’ve provided what you essentially view as the “bare bones” of reproduction, but you’re assigning values to them. Those values could just as easily be assigned to the opposite roles, as shown below.
That you’ve framed the situation as you have is your fault, not Psyche’s. Your attempt to tell her that it is her fault she’s offended is offensive to myself (and likely others, I’d wager).
Wow. You’ve missed the mark on basic female biology. Women’s clitorises also become erect — both the external structure and the “root” structures beneath the skin. Lubrication is necessary to guide sperm up through the cervix — and women’s lubrication changes throughout the month, only becoming sperm-friendly at the time of ovulation. Orgasm, also, helps move the sperm up through the cervix, giving them a fighting chance at reaching the egg. It’s true we can get pregnant without these things happening — but you’re talking about rape, there, not consensual sex — and the odds increase substantially if erection, lubrication, and orgasm take place in the female.
Beyond that, pregnancy is anything but a passive experience, and anyone who has been pregnant and given birth can tell you that. And let’s not forget breastfeeding, which some have likened to the male erectile/ejaculatory response. Look up “let-down reflex” if you don’t know what I’m talking about.
First of all, allow me to explain what I consider to be someone equal to me. It is someone who can talk with an open mind (and/or heart), without taking offense. I hate having to dance around certain topics so as not to “offend” the other party (regardless of which minority/majority group they are a part of), just like I would not anyone to dance around certain topics so as not to offend me. I’ve noticed a long time ago that whenever I am offended by something, the “offender” has touched on something that I need to work on. I see taking offense as a Restriction (just like I consider chauvinism – and any other -ism for that matter – to be a Restriction).
This is not to say that sexism isn’t present in the occult world. But there should always be an honest appraisal whether the sexism is real or simply a projection. I would not like to treat female (occultists) any different than male. If I dismiss something a woman has said, that is not because she is a woman, but because I disagree with her so completely that I see her input as completely irrelevant. I have the exact same approach to stupid things that men say as well. Just like I wholeheartedly accept (and yearn for) relevant comments and criticism.
Of course, I have, on occasion, wrongfully dismissed certain input as irrelevant (regardless whether from males or females). Sometimes the person did raise their voice loud enough (metaphorically speaking), sometimes I reconsidered what was said and apologized, and sometimes nothing was done until it was too late (because the person was too offended/discouraged/scared). I have enormous respect for those that speak up instead of shutting down. Even if they are wrong and, later, proven wrong. IMO, it is better to speak up and be proven wrong rather than keep quiet and be wrong in your head for a while longer.
For the record, I do consider men and women to be quite different from each other. And I have learned things from women that no man could teach/show me. Like I said earlier, anyone dismissing someone simply because of bias, deserves every and any thing they get. Hell, I try to keep an open mind even about people who have proven to be very consistent in showing how restricted they are (and yes, I have been pleasantly surprised :)).
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. It sounds like you’re trying to present yourself as an equal-opportunity listener, but you also seem to be dismissing that the misogyny experienced by the women in the thread here may be ‘projection’ (whatever that means).
I don’t think most women want to be discriminated against, but the reality is that it happens, it sucks, and it’s a problem that needs to be addressed.
I dismissed nothing. I only said that every situation needs to be assessed individually and carefully (before slapping on labels like misogyny and sexism). Not everything a man says is due to misogyny. Sometimes it’s just rudeness in general, sometimes it’s like in the example I gave. It’s true that misogyny could be involved, but it’s not necessarily the case in every single situation.
You can read about projection here and a little more (including examples) here. Like I said earlier, whenever I think someone is being __________ (fill in the blank), I try to see whether I have those same “qualities”. For example, that is how several years ago I discovered (much to my surprise) that I was shallow. After dealing with that personal problem, I seem to find less and less shallow people.
Sometimes discrimination is not really discrimination, but more a case of “what the thinker thinks, the prover proves”.
I understand projection, but I don’t see how it applies in the examples give by myself in the original post, nor by the commentators who’ve shared their experiences here.
I’ve seen sexism go both ways in the community. I’ve seen groups where men were considered an inferior gender and were pretty much slaves to the female members. I’ve known guys who have been denied access to their family traditions because they weren’t women. In the same way, some people are douches to everyone. The community is full of people who have no real knowledge, no ability, and are lying about their training and lineage, and so they try to make themselves out to be knowledgeable and superior to everyone they come into contact with, man or woman, in order to perpetuate this lie. Even as a boy, I’ve had my fair share of being talked down to.
But do cut these guys a little bit of slack. When a guy asks who you came with, he’s probably just trying to figure out if you came with a boyfriend or husband. In the same way these guys probably don’t have great, or even descent, careers and don’t have much money and they probably aren’t in a band and they probably don’t look all that attractive. If you’ve come to an event, they probably assume you’re a spiritual person and if they can come off as some spiritual master, maybe you’ll develop a crush on them. They’re trying to impress you with one of the few tools they believe they have at their disposal, however misguided their attempt may be, not teach you because you’re a girl and obviously don’t know anything
Most guys who attend these events are there because they, for whatever reason, have come to believe two things. First, that single women they will find attractive will be at this event. Secondly that these women will, at some point during the event, be topless. This never actually happens. It’s rare that an attractive woman will show up to an event, and if they do they will never take their top off. So when an attractive woman does show up to these events, the men descend upon her like vultures. And like I said, these are not the most attractive of suitors, these aren’t the types of guys who have the best of luck with women, and so their attempts to talk to and flirt with women are probably going to be a bit substandard and off-putting.
As for the fire stone thing, this is someone who is either ignorant or not intelligent enough to understand key concepts, mainly the difference between symbolic gender and physical gender, and also that all people are both genders anyways so it’s a mute point. People like that give you an opportunity to put them back into their place.
And honestly, if someone does try to make you look or feel inferior, if they try to humiliate you, or if they try to make a spectacle out of you, whether its sexist or for some other reason, put them in their place. Stand up to them. Humiliate them publicly if they deserve it. The community is full of assholes who are trying for nothing more than to procure a position of power and prestige they didn’t earn and don’t deserve. And these people will do things to make you seem like less than them, to make themselves seem better than you. If you have earned your reputation, if you have knowledge and power, these people are easy to deal with, and easy to humiliate. I’ve had to do it before. Everyone I know in the community who has gotten any kind of respect has had to do it. Respect is something that has to be earned, regardless of which gender you are. If you want to be placed in a position of equality or superiority, you have to be able to prove you deserve it.
I’d be interested to hear more about this if you’d be willing to discuss more specific examples.
And that is precisely the problem.
This sort of objectification is horrifyingly demeaning, and perfectly exemplifies why women stay away from public occulture. What do you think can be done to change this?
I find this comment disturbing. Not because it’s untrue, but because it often seems to be the case. Yet, why is it that men rarely seem required to ‘earn’ the right to be respected in this space, but women must prove they deserve it?
I don’t know how to make quoties :(
I know that the oldest occult store in town was taken over by a group of Alegard Wiccans and the men in that group were subservient to the women. I heard they worked for free at the store and were passed around sexually, and when I saw them they were very clearly being dominated, and one of the priestesses failed at a very direct attempt to dominate me. I’m not sure if they’re still around. I’ve had issues with them in the past but it’s had nothing to do with the sexism thing. Personally I just won’t associate with those people.
As for the second case, I’ll say that I know that traditional witchcraft tends to be very female-centric, and I know someone from a family tradition who has had issues with this, but I don’t want to say more without his permission to talk about it because it is his personal life, not mine.
quotie:This sort of objectification is horrifyingly demeaning, and perfectly exemplifies why women stay away from public occulture. What do you think can be done to change this?
Castrate the men?
Single men want to find girlfriends. Single women want to find boyfriends. A lot of single people are attending these functions because they hope to meet someone. A lot of people go to church because they hope to meet someone there. Pre-Christianity, one of the purposes of the various festivals and rituals in every single culture was for single people to meet.
In fact many group leaders promote this. This gets people to show up to group functions. Any time you have a large group that is mostly heterosexual or bisexual and almost entirely one gender, you’ll notice it will start to die down pretty quick. You’ll notice if you take the average attractiveness of all the men and compare it to the average of all the women, it’s about equal in most groups.
People, men and women, want to date, and its a combination of wanting to find someone special for a long term relationship and just wanting to get laid because you’re horny. This is normal human nature and normal courting rituals. I don’t see how this is demeaning to anyone.
quotie:I find this comment disturbing. Not because it’s untrue, but because it often seems to be the case. Yet, why is it that men rarely seem required to ‘earn’ the right to be respected in this space, but women must prove they deserve it?
Because you’re a woman, maybe you’re biased and think only women have to prove themselves. I haven’t had anything handed to me. Every time I’ve ventured into the local community I’ve had issues with someone who wants to command me or prove that they’re better than me. I had to go chase down one guy and threaten him in front of a group after he started spreading rumors that I was his student.
I’m able to achieve my position in groups because I prove that I know the material well, because I practice magick, because my magick works, because I’m not afraid or intimidated by anyone, and because I pretty much demand that group leaders treat me as their peer. When someone does demean or disrespects me, I take care of it in public.
My point being, as a man, I’ve been treated this same way by both men and women in the community. I don’t think it has anything to do with gender. It’s just people trying to put themselves off as more powerful than they really are.
“Because you’re a woman, maybe you’re biased and think only women have to prove themselves. I haven’t had anything handed to me.”
Wow. Something tells me you’ve never delved deeply into the concept of male privilege in western society.
[...] absurd. [back]This topic arose in part due to a comment made on the previous post, “Sexism in contemporary occulture“; the commentator was making a point about gender associations in Chinese Medicine, and the [...]
In thinking about this post over the past few days, it occurs to me that one of the problems that may be in play here — and I have to say this carefully — is that social groups will attract the kinds of people who will play by “the rules” of that group. If the dominant paradigm in occulture is for men to be the thinkers/writers/leaders and for the women to follow and be quiet, then that’s the kind of people it will attract. For the most part. There will always be exceptions — women who are out front and visible, strong, independent — as well as men who are tolerant, or even glad, of those women. But maybe because the culture has been this way so long, and the women go elsewhere, it’s tough to make the change. I think that definitely plays a part in what’s going on.
Agreed. As you suggested above, if we ever want to change this, we’ll just have to remain visible and plug on.
This is a topic that will be revisited again here.
Well, I chipped in my 2 cents on the general issue of privilege in this thread: http://ahrfoundation.org/2008/01/29/masculinism-and-gender-equality/comment-page-1/#comment-12683
Basically, I am someone who has gone from female bodied to male-transgendered. I transitioned while a part of a large, traditional (high priest led) wiccan coven, and it was horrible, to put it bluntly. They laid on the whole ‘everyone is androgynous inside’ along while simultaneously going on about biological essentialism, often within the same conversation. Needless to say, their attitude to my intersexed body and my identity conflicted with their philosophy. I am certainly a ‘Yang’ sort of person, but it was assumed that I was automatically receptive and would take the female role in ritual because I have a vagina. That I am incapable of certain rituals because of my genitals. Another group (also male-lead) refused my admission because they felt my transgression of binary gender was an indication I was possessed – a well known Australian organisation, as well. Naturally anyone who is remotely transgressive of the binary is demonically possessed.
Anyway, with the coven I was a part of, as I began to transition, several things came about that were quite alarming. The HP started to treat me differently based on my appearance as a man…most notably, he ceased to sexually objectify me. And that is when I noticed – holy shit! This man IS sexually objectifying the women of the coven, me included, until I started looking like a bloke. I didn’t notice until I had the privilege to be able to step back and see from a removed position how differently men and women were treated here. Is it any coincidence that the HPSes (and they went through several) were all ‘samey’ in the way they looked? Typically young and pretty. Of course, they get naked around each other, specifically with the HP, who is a very charasmatic man.
That really irked me – also something that irked me was that, despite finally being (so generously!) recognised as a man by the coven, I was considered to be an inferior to a cismale because I still have a vagina – ye gods. Inferior, in the sense that I was not allowed to consecrate tools, perform certain rituals, etc. This isn’t some teenage backyard coven – this is a well known and generally respected circle. Phallocentricism reared its ugly head. Needless to say, I am no longer a part of this organisation.
I now pass male 100% with my clothes on – and for sure, the way I am generally treated has changed dramatically within occult circles and many other areas of life. Prior to transition I was not interested in feminism much – during this process, I have had the experience of stepping back into the white male sphere of privilege, and it has taught me a lot. Its tragically real and so subtle that a lot of people seem to think we’ve just magically overcome gender bias and discrimination.
@Rob: “Because you’re a woman, maybe you’re biased and think only women have to prove themselves. I haven’t had anything handed to me. ”
That’s true of everyone – the difference between you and most women, except the very materially and socially privileged, is that you still have the opportunity and the means to prove yourself. Many people don’t even have that chance – I know that, as a woman (even a very butch woman), it was typically assumed that I had less knowledge, ability, aptitude and drive to compete JUST because I was (visibly) female. Now that I am visibly male, I cannot recall that same attitude being dished to me.
I’ve been both male and female and can say without much bias that the treatment the sexes give to one another is very different.
Sorry you’ve had a crap time with the pagans, but being called “demonically possessed” surely has to be seen as a compliment. Not being dismissive here, but that would have made my decade.
You know the most telling thing to me in this whole thing?
That instead of just *listening* to Psyche, and the other women who comment on this, the men are largely arguing with us.
Why is it that we can never just be *heard* when we talk about these things? Is it any wonder why so many of us drop out after a while?
Again, yes. Observing the dynamics in this response thread seems to support our points.
I just wanted to pipe in here and say that, while I’ve had the good fortune to work closely with several powerful, competent female magicians, I’ve heard reports from many of them of the sort of sexism the female posters here describe. I’ve done a fair bit of work on myself to overcome whatever inherent sexism I either inherited or developed on my own, and I’ve been greatly helped by the above mentioned powerful women and by other friends schooled in and/or aware of such matters.
Also, on a technical level, I’m confused regarding people assigning gender roles to elements. Baffled, even. In rituals I’ve participated, if we were really trying to focus on people’s spiritual strengths, we’d look at their charts. Having a Grand Trine in Earth, I, despite having a penis, often end up there. Veleda, a woman, has a Grand Trine in Fire, and she often ends up there. Other times, we’d pick randomly or work on what we considered to be our weakest element. The Fire/Man thing you describe, Psyche, seems not only stupid but profoundly lazy to me.
More to the point, the model of active/passive is a FAR more useful way to describe elements than masculine/feminine or male/female. The elements are ideals, and need to be simple in representation. There’s nothing simple about sex or gender, and they tend to muddle the elements.
Those points aside, I agree with what the women here are saying regarding ‘the way out.’ Work your practice and demonstrate your genius. Some people won’t respond at once, but they’ll ‘get it’ (or their kids will) after a.) being called on their bullshit and b.) your continued presence and communication.
Your right, looking at forces as being active or passive is probably a better way to go. I also think that starting at that point would have potentially cleared up a lot of problems in this thread and the next one.
It is passive force that the elements are assigned to (not gender). It is also the passive force that femininity is assigned to (note I used the words passive force, not the word passive). It is the act mentioned by Crowley and often quoted by Dion Fortune in Mystical Qabalah (which I happen to be rereading) of building up our filing cabinet of associations between metaphysical ideas that would lead some to that conclusion.
Which is then connected to the idea of female, not as a human individual but as a class or organism as contrasted to male (ie: female: bears, dogs, cats, rats, dolphins, fish, jungle animals, humans). *Probably* largely due to the idea that birth is a passive force, because it takes 9 months for humans (and various amounts of time for other organisms) to conceive. As opposed to males, that regenerate semen every day, there by comparison their participation in creation is an active force (Without contrasting birth to the generation of semen this could seem unfair as birth is quite an active process if brought down to the discrete levels of activity).
I am sure more examples could also be brought up.
The point of this isn’t to continue arguing and trying to prove I am right. Examples as to why were asked for and I realized that people were approaching this trying to justify the elemental connection to femininity, which isnt as cogent as the connection between the water, earth elements and the passive force and femininity and the passive force.
I am running out the door to work, forgive me if there is much bad grammar or any ideas arent fully completed.
[...] week than it’s ever been in the history of this blog, largely due to my post about “Sexism in contemporary occulture“, with some spill over on my follow up with “Gender and the elements“. A third [...]
Hello,
The following is my response to the question of “What can be done about it?”
I noticed that, throughout this discussion, sexism was never really defined. It’s hard to try to come up with solutions or even talk meaningfully about sexism without a commonly accepted definition.
I assume the accepted definition to be “assuming particular traits about someone based upon their sex.”
This is a very difficult problem to try to solve. We humans are finite, and everything we do is based on assumptions. If my friend looks sad, I assume that they are not feeling well and try to help. If I meet somebody wearing a Hello Kitty t-shirt, I assume that they like Hello Kitty. These assumptions could be wrong, but we /have/ to make assumptions as long as we have limited information.
The question with sexism seems to be: “What assumptions can reasonably be made about someone based on their sex?” Most of you seem to think the answer is “just about nothing”, but much of modern culture disagrees. From “Beauty and the Beast” to “James Bond”, sex/gender roles are actively promoted in much of modern culture. As long as these reinforcements are ubiquitous from birth it will be impossible to completely root out sexism.
———————-
We can change culturally driven assumptions via:
-A new culture (Counterculture)
-Change the existing culture, by applying individual techniques (below) on a mass scale
———————-
Change individual assumptions:
-Assert/prove that the stereotype is incorrect (Education, Counterexamples)
-Delete individuals asserting the stereotype
The other way to reduce perceived sexism is, of course, to change your perceptions. :)
I would also submit that men experience plenty of sexism. Arguably, for every woman’s complaint of sexism there is an equivalent man’s complaint. Sexists would expect that women are incompetent and that men are competent; that women are pretty and men are rugged. The pressure to be the “Perfect Man” is no less than the pressure to be the “Perfect Woman.”
[...] is fiction, but it’s part of an important trend of telling women’s stories. there was a post over on ahrfoundation a little while ago that also points some of this out, and it’s something that shouldn’t [...]
Joseph, if you think:
“it’s fine to say in a specific ritual, the woman should be in the west or whatever”
then I say, for that particular ritual, if you want to invoke femininity, be the one in the West. Your symbolizing does not go one way!
If this were a debate, Psyche wins. Joseph, read some of the books that were mentioned.
As an example of the ridiculousness I noted in my comment to the previous post, someone said:
“The idea of duality is one of the core ideas of the universe, and the masculine and feminine forces are one the simplest and most effective expressions of that idea.”
Absolute feces! “Male” did not exist in this universe until the evolutionary process developed that reproductive strategy a few hundred million years ago. Read Dawkins “The Ancestors Tale.” I hear the same thing from baby-boomer Jungians, that somehow the development of the XY chromosome was really an instantiation of some supreme spiritual formula. It was amino acids trying to effectively reproduce, leave your gendered metaphysics out of it!
“Men are an evolutionary expiriment, a needed innovation that was once useful but now may be your species’ undoing.” — my HGA.
You haven’t understood my point.
Your symbolizing does not go one way!
I invoke “femininity” a minimum of once a day. You are preaching to the priest here.
“This constitutes a profound Riddle of Holiness… Those only understand it who combine in themselves the extremes of Moral idea, identifying them through transcendental overcoming of the antinomy. They must have gone further yet, beyond the fundamental opposition of the sexes. The male must have completed himself and become androgyne; the female, and become gynander.This incompleteness imprisons the soul. To think ‘I am not woman, but man’ or vice versa, is to limit one’s self, to set a bar to one’s motion. It is the root of the ’shutting-up’ which culminates in become ‘Mary inviolate’ or a ‘Black Brother.’” –Commentary on Liber LXV, V:44
If this were a debate
That’s just it; it wasn’t a debate. I was trying to explain a perspective which Plustopsyche completely did not grasp. But if you and she think it’s a win, don’t let me stop you from gloating.
[...] follow us on Twitter, and find us on Facebook. We're so Web 2.0.The comments section for “Sexism in contemporary occulture” and “Gender and the elements” have recently flared up again, and it’s [...]
[...] feature was actually implemented a few months ago after a particular discussion took place where I felt that rather than repeating myself or others in the thread, it would be helpful if [...]