Male Gods = War? part two...
Okay, continued...
The argument that a matristic restructuring of society must include a complete exclusion of any concept of a Divine Masculine also scares me. First, it scares me because that just seems to reinforce the common assumption that Matriarchy is "Patriarchy in a skirt." Patriarchy has been defined and vilified for its complete ignorance of the ways of Nature and the Feminine, so the fact that open-minded progressive women would support the oppression of another group of people in the same way completely boggles my mind. It just looks as though one is stuck in that same Patriarchal mindset that one has to dominate another because healthy human beings cannot coexist peaceably if left to their own devises. The idea that one group must be in charge of another because it is inherently inadequate at self-governence is a Patriarchal ideal forever immortalized when a group of Hebrews 2,550 years ago said their god gave mankind "dominion" over Earth.
I'm a fan of the human parthenogenesis theory, though I haven't done much research into it. But if women reproduced asexually in our past, we do not anymore... As this is the case, our pragmatic cosmology should represent this in some way, and this must include some sort of masculine consort to our Goddess. And while this consort has to exist, let's look at this as an opportunity, not a neccessary evil! Here we are with an opportunity to redefine what a "manly" God is! The "warrior = virile" Alpha Male is passe, we all know that, but if we leave this as a big gaping hole after it has been there for millenia, it will be filled by men who will rightly feel jilted and excluded. ALL HUMANITY, all of Existence is sacred, not just some of it, whomever's "turn" it is to be valued, and our cosmology must reflect that.
Violent warrior gods were created to reflect the type of Man that "properly" contributed to society, by "proving" he has the physical prowess to slaughter animals to feed his community... So let's work with that. What makes a Man in current society a good citizen includes treating his partner with emotional support and respect, and having an active role (emotionally, mentally, and physically) in the rearing of any offspring, whether biologically his own or otherwise.
Clinging to the idea of a "woman only" cosmology because it seemed to work on an island before the inhabitants knew any other way is not realistic. Lol, like communism is a wonderful theory, because of human experience and human nature, it doesn't seem to work in practice. The world has changed and we cannot go back. Revolution, re-evolving our society does not include regressing or reverting to a past place. If it was so great and strong, it wouldn't have folded. And anyway, everything looks better in nostalgia. The fact is, even with all the archealogical evidence, there are none living that remember the Minoan era and exactly how it functioned... So all we can do is move forward and create a place in which all genders feel validated. We have to learn from the past to see how it was overcome by Male-only Worshipping, violent outsiders and create a stable society in which it isn't felt as though it were neccessary for that to happen again.
The argument that a matristic restructuring of society must include a complete exclusion of any concept of a Divine Masculine also scares me. First, it scares me because that just seems to reinforce the common assumption that Matriarchy is "Patriarchy in a skirt." Patriarchy has been defined and vilified for its complete ignorance of the ways of Nature and the Feminine, so the fact that open-minded progressive women would support the oppression of another group of people in the same way completely boggles my mind. It just looks as though one is stuck in that same Patriarchal mindset that one has to dominate another because healthy human beings cannot coexist peaceably if left to their own devises. The idea that one group must be in charge of another because it is inherently inadequate at self-governence is a Patriarchal ideal forever immortalized when a group of Hebrews 2,550 years ago said their god gave mankind "dominion" over Earth.
I'm a fan of the human parthenogenesis theory, though I haven't done much research into it. But if women reproduced asexually in our past, we do not anymore... As this is the case, our pragmatic cosmology should represent this in some way, and this must include some sort of masculine consort to our Goddess. And while this consort has to exist, let's look at this as an opportunity, not a neccessary evil! Here we are with an opportunity to redefine what a "manly" God is! The "warrior = virile" Alpha Male is passe, we all know that, but if we leave this as a big gaping hole after it has been there for millenia, it will be filled by men who will rightly feel jilted and excluded. ALL HUMANITY, all of Existence is sacred, not just some of it, whomever's "turn" it is to be valued, and our cosmology must reflect that.
Violent warrior gods were created to reflect the type of Man that "properly" contributed to society, by "proving" he has the physical prowess to slaughter animals to feed his community... So let's work with that. What makes a Man in current society a good citizen includes treating his partner with emotional support and respect, and having an active role (emotionally, mentally, and physically) in the rearing of any offspring, whether biologically his own or otherwise.
Clinging to the idea of a "woman only" cosmology because it seemed to work on an island before the inhabitants knew any other way is not realistic. Lol, like communism is a wonderful theory, because of human experience and human nature, it doesn't seem to work in practice. The world has changed and we cannot go back. Revolution, re-evolving our society does not include regressing or reverting to a past place. If it was so great and strong, it wouldn't have folded. And anyway, everything looks better in nostalgia. The fact is, even with all the archealogical evidence, there are none living that remember the Minoan era and exactly how it functioned... So all we can do is move forward and create a place in which all genders feel validated. We have to learn from the past to see how it was overcome by Male-only Worshipping, violent outsiders and create a stable society in which it isn't felt as though it were neccessary for that to happen again.
posted by Lisa | 7:40 PM
13 Comments:
Wow, these are some great posts. Both you and Athana make some excellent points. I, of course, am no where near to making up my mind on this issue; my personal spiritual practice is Goddess-only, but that's a result of my own history and experience. I'm not entirely averse to the idea of acknowledging/incorporating male dieties (I've always been intrigued by the figure of the Green Man, for instance), but I'm not sure how we can without succumbing to simplistic dualities. That's the question. Anyway, you've given much food for thought...
lisa, my reading of Gimbutas indicates that she thinks the "patriarchy" began ca 5000 - 2000 BC, depending on where you are on the planet. Do you have a quote from her re: the 15,000 BC date?
It's a fairly well established fact that all human groups were nomadic before the advent of plant domestication (ca 10,000 - 8,000 BC). Before then, all humans existed via following the seasonal migration of wild game. Permanent settlments came into existence only after humans domesticated plants and therefore had a dependable food supply in one location.
So the male big-game hunters have been around for most of human existence on the planet, i.e., for a million years or so, roughly.
I think you may be perfectly correct about the dysfunctional societies coming first, and then later rigging up warrior gods to reflect their sociocultural milieu. However, I believe the warrior gods then sustain the dysfunction. "Fathers" in the animal kingdom often do not love or even know their children. Mothers do.
As Morgaine has noted, the primary dyad among both animals and humans is the mother-child dyad. Whether that child is a son or a daughter, it is loved by the mother. Men in god societies have to be forced to break this tie with their mothers. So yes, I think our brothers might have problems with female deity. The feminine divine, their natural divinity, has been forcibly choked out of them.
"Mama's Boy." Wow. How much lower can you go if you want to insult a man?!? Fag? Queer? I don't know which of the three is more debilitating to god men. They're probably equivalent in perceived severity.
And what's wrong with being a Man of The Mother? Nothing. Nothing at all. In fact, I think it might mean more of an increase in mental health for men, even, than for women.
That strong tie between man and mother was probably the very first thing the new god societies had to break in order to devastate and finally obliterate the Goddess.
We ourselves are god people. You, I, and almost everyone in America. Even if we think we're Goddess worshippers, I maintain that we still view everything around us through the grey-tinted glasses of a warrior-father-god culture.
. However, I believe the warrior gods then sustain the dysfunction. "Fathers" in the animal kingdom often do not love or even know their children
Oh, I absolutely agree that these gods did/do sustain the dysfunction, no arguements there!
But is it fair to compare "Fathers" in the animal kingdom? I mean, they're not exactly aware of the male biological ties right? Meh, but that's nitpicking...
We ourselves are god people. You, I, and almost everyone in America. Even if we think we're Goddess worshippers, I maintain that we still view everything around us through the grey-tinted glasses of a warrior-father-god culture.
Again, absolutely agree. Got into a great arguement with a friend that all of Jack Kerouac's works are tinged with his Catholic view of Zen, it could never be pure Buddhism...
"But is it fair to compare "Fathers" in the animal kingdom? I mean, they're not exactly aware of the male biological ties right? Meh, but that's nitpicking...
"
But doesn't that apply to humans as well? I mean, the whole point of a patrilineal system is to control women's bodies and sexuality to ensure that a man can pass his wealth onto his "legitimate" offspring. If a woman is in control of her own body, then barring DNA testing, it's not so easy to determine the father of the child. The mother of the child is a fact that can't be doubted, on the other hand.
Anyway, I agree re: the subtle influence of god culture. I try to bring up that argument whenever my friends criticize me for not throwing out religion and spirituality altogether.
If a woman is in control of her own body, then barring DNA testing, it's not so easy to determine the father of the child.
No, I know all that, but I felt that where she was referring to animals, it was to illustrate how it is "unnatural" for men to be cognizant of their progeny or something. Animals aren't aware that males have anything to do with it, humans are at least aware, even if we can't be sure of specific paternity.
Do you have a quote from her re: the 15,000 BC date?
Click on the word Matristic in the original post, that's an interview she did.
sorry but of course animals are aware aware of paternal lines what else do male bulls tigers lions ect fight about.because they dont have voice boxes thier intelligence is severly underated. i once had a pony who was cleverer than most people he could unlock doors steal food take an interest in books,at least the pictures and maps both his parents were wild ,exmoor cross conamara. to the stable ponies bred over generations stupidity was an asset,blind obedience is what there slave owners like and there we have it again social forces become evolving forces,given long enough.
Okay, you got me, I'm not a nature expert.
of course animals are aware aware of paternal lines what else do male bulls tigers lions ect fight about
What about that whole argument that humans are the only animals that have sex for procreation, all other animals just do what feels good and that's why there's no natural taboo on homosexuality?
I think it's fairly well accepted that male animals have no awareness of paternity. They fight for females out of instinct. Most male animals copulate with so many females that even the females have no idea who the father of a baby is -- even if they would have an awareness of the relationship between copulation and pregnancy, which they do not!
So in a very real sense, there is no such thing as "father" in the animal kingdom.
And there's even debate about when humans first became aware of the role of men in procreation.
Furthermore, if humans have been matrifocal for most of our existence, then fatherhood may be an exceedingly young, recent and untried invention!
On the other hand, "mother" is as ancient as the hills, and as obvious as the nose on your face -- to every human, and to every animal.
From the beginnings of mammilian life, at any rate, "mother" has meant a consciousness of care, nourishment, warmth, love, and delight.
So my point is, when you base a deity on a role that historically hasn't existed, or has been insignificant, or even filled with hostility ("father"), then do you risk creating a society that is pale, insignificant, and/or hostile?
In some animal species, "fathers' kill or eat the young. Females have to be on guard to prevent it.
males fight to promote thier genes but thier interests may lie in different moulds of fathership ie get as many in as poss or focus on one individual,, when females cincronise there seasons as many birds do the male is foced to cocentrate on one and his resources are hers still all males of all species know about mating most follow the most gained for the least returned which leaves the mother the majour player in the baby raising steaks,as athana said. but all goddess people should study the bonobo most ancient matriarchy of them all video by national geographic the new chimpanzee makes a easy begining, franns lantings book the bonobo is magical read and then theres the faulty but interesting demonic males by primatologist richard wrangam.who knows nothing about the goddessess
(Anonymous, not to be rude, but I have a hard time deciphering your posts. Can you use better spacing and punctuation? Sorry!)
So my point is, when you base a deity on a role that historically hasn't existed, or has been insignificant, or even filled with hostility ("father"), then do you risk creating a society that is pale, insignificant, and/or hostile?
Well, we know that this is true, as male deities were created to reinforce historically "young" ideals when warrior gods were created, but they were nonetheless created and stuck, which in turn cemented this concept for millenia.
So Gandhi said that we are to be the change we wish to see in the world, why not have our deities be the reality we wish to manifest?
By trying to revolutionize the world we've come to know, we are also trying to create Goddesses that do not exactly reflect their place in history. What the hell is all this importance on history?? I mean, that what the followers of Abraham do!
They base all of their atrocities on how they interpret their history, without taking into account enough their present! I am not a Reconstructionist. Yes, we should be cognizant of our past or we are doomed to repeat history's mistakes, but I wonder if we are not falling into a trap of dwelling on the past? I don't know.
But anyway, in the matriarchal societies that have/do exist, there does exist a "father" figure, even if it is not the biological sperm donor. Let's be flexible with our labels.
Post a Comment
<< Home