![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Apparently This Needs to be Said
I strongly object to any and all terms which characterize women's bodies and beings as being "less", with being a failure -- especially when explicitly contrasted with warrior culture. I particularly object to women's genitalia being used in this way. Make any case you like criticizing the current state of our culture (or anything else), but do not use women, women's sexuality, or femininity to characterize what you think is wrong.
Criticizing individual women is as valid as criticizing individual men, of course. My objection is using the "idea" of women, of feminininty, as inherently derrogatory.
Criticizing individual women is as valid as criticizing individual men, of course. My objection is using the "idea" of women, of feminininty, as inherently derrogatory.
no subject
no subject
no subject
+1
no subject
Not disagreeing with your point at all, of course. But I do want to challenge the notion that we can cleanly separate out "good" warrior culture from "bad" warrior culture and somehow just keep the good bits. I don't know of this ever having been accomplished outside of romantic* fiction. Perhaps the whole enterprise of celebrating violence and intimidation (sometimes euphemized as "strength") is rotten to the core.
* Note: using "romance" in the technical sense -- say, Chanson De Roland or Morte d'Arthur.
no subject
This post was in response to a particular term used in a comment on a previous post, which is also where the contrast with "warrior culture" was used.
Separating out the noble aspects of warrior culture from the rotten ones is extremely difficult, and it's part of the central work of the Soldier's Heart process. It seems most successful on the individual level -- but I think that could be true of most "shadow" work, since culture is made up of individuals, and it seems that a certain critical mass of individual change has to occur before there is a cultural shift. I don't feel that I'm in a place where I can meaningfully discuss or debate how likely it is that warrior culture can be changed in a meaningful, large scale way in the perceivable future, but I'm not optimistic.
Re: +1
In this case, the usage occurred in a personal exchange with me, so I was disinclined to let it go as a general cultural characteristic.
no subject
Indeed!
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
(And yes, I know I'm being a bit pedantic, but we are talking about defusing broad assumptions made on physical prowess of various sorts.)
no subject
no subject
I think something that doesn't revolve around one particular biological system in our bodies would be great--or maybe just abolishing the strict archetypes altogether.
no subject
no subject
no subject
For a different sort of example, how about how women tested as more phyically and mentally capable for space exploration in the 1950's? Little known fact that was interesting to find out. Of course, one could say that it's not a fair comparison either because some people can't handle heights... but if we are going to grasp for straws...
no subject
Such a moral society we have that degrades sexuality yet is also so controlled by sex. Lol ignorance has created this sexual power drama. Both sex are equal however even as we teach in the eastern mystery schools a woman does not have to become tantric she already is, it is the man whom must become tantric.
The man must allow the female to surface from within themselves to become balanced for the female sexuality is far more potent and powerful then the males. Only from this adrogeny will the man equal a womans sexuality.
Todays male fears the female sex and so they degrade it making themselves feel superior. This is only another display of devolved ignorance.
no subject
There's also the issue of the limitations of a gender paradigm that rigidly divides humanity into two polarized groups on the basis of biology, leaving out the experiences and spirituality of those who do not fit into those categories.
no subject
no subject
The identification that one gender has a strength that the other gender lacks is not a sexist statment but a medical one. Medical research shows that women have stronger traits and aspects that men lack as well as men have traits and aspects that females lack. This is not sexist nor does it qualify that one gender is stronger or better then the other, however it does balance them out. For each male and female is the opposite side of the whole. One can not be truly complete with out the other, though this does not require two individuals.
no subject
You made this statement: The man must allow the female to surface from within themselves to become balanced for the female sexuality is far more potent and powerful then the males. Only from this adrogeny will the man equal a womans sexuality.
Your own statement is that female sexuality is "more potent and powerful" and men must take certain steps in order to "become equal." You defined the model in terms of one gender needing to do work which the other does not. This implies a natural superiority in the one who does not have to do the work. Since you base that claim on gender, it is a sexist statement.
I am rejecting your original position based on the following beliefs:
1. Generalizations about gender are not helpful in a discussion about spiritual talents or capacities because ultimately spirituality is an individual endeavor, and individuality always trumps generalizations.*
2. Any gender-based generalization that reduces gender to two binary and mutually exclusive (however complementary) polarities is ignoring the growing body of knowledge about the spiritual lives and experiences of those whose gender does not fit that model: third gendered people, people who are naturally androgynous, transsexuals, and etc. It is simplistic and reductive, two qualities I also do not consider helpful.
None of us has has an innate, universal spiritual advantage or disadvantage due to gender or biology.
If the principles you espouse have been helpful in your own experience and growth, great. But they are not universally helpful or applicable, however "ancient" they may be.
* I believe this is also true in the strength example you brought into the conversation. It may be true that on average men are stronger than women -- but no responsible doctor or personal trainer will judge an individual's health or physical capacity based on statistical profiles. Men in general have greater upper body strength than women do, but not every man can outlift every woman.
no subject
First you'd have to decide that having strength for extreme stresses is the "better" strength, and then declare women the winner. Like deciding short is better than tall when it comes to height, or heavy is better than light when it comes to weight. There are strengths and weaknesses in each, and pinging the "other" as deficient is silly and counterproductive.
Not that that is necessarily what you are doing. It could very well be you are making the first point, I just couldn't tell from what you had written in these two comments.
no subject
So yeah, first point you mentioned, not second. ;-)
no subject
Even in the Gnostic scripitures of Thomas we find a saying from YeJoshua saying "... is it a mystery that the flesh is because of spirit or is it more a mystery that the spirit is because of the flesh..." not an exact qoute but close enough.
I actually was refering to biology when speaking in terms of tantra. The school of thought that I attend removes the spiritual hocus pocus thought from the teachings and takes it to a purly scientifc and medical stance in such demonstrating the truly alchemical nature and mystery that our bodies represent and have the potential to demonstrate. I would encourage anyone to study the "Jewel and the Lotus" writen by my teacher Sunyata Saraswati.
Our bodies are the alter. The blood, with all its magical hormones, is the wine are brains are the bread and the alchemy occurs in the skull chalice.
However, you are correct in your ascertions. I believe that there is only a miscommunication between we two because of an expected response from my qouting. You see again I used this qoute for this particular discussion because of the nature of the qoute and that the qoute itself represents the degradtion prevalant within our society.
I did not make the qoute because, as is insinuated, that I am sexist. I actually experience sexism frequently being a stay at home father and having had been raped, through the us of a drug in the drink, while in the military. Both being almost taboo to mention in the public.
no subject
And please understand: I did not mean to suggest that you yourself are sexist in general. I said that I believed the particular spiritual paradigm you were endorsing was sexist. I suppose that statement can be easily extended to infer that the person who chooses to participates in that paradigm is sexist, but that was not my intention.
I'm very sorry to hear that you were raped. I can only imagine what kind of pain that has been for you, especially since it occurred in the military.
no subject
Yes, I caught myself after I had actually made the post and thought that I probably should have re-thought the qoute and wrote something else, however it was already posted.=(
You are correct, there was many issues for me to deal with. Being a man, being a warrior, being a sam sex rape. It was difficult and the worst part was not being able to say anything to anyone and to continue my tour surronded by other men always having that in the back and front of my mind. Many years of work, however all well now. I can speak of it and it holds no power over me!
no subject
I have no connection to Masonry, to Tantra, or to Odin.
I am at a loss to imagine what you think we have in common.
no subject
May be I should first question: Being spirituality an individual process, many people have different definitions leading to miscomunications often. I have a calling toward the path of the Raven which leads me to be a warrior/priest of The Deep. The Deep in my eyes is similar to the underworld. I may be wrong in my asertion.
I felt a similarity whith your post as being a priestess of the Underworld. Could you explain this to me. Being a "Seeker" I also study anthropolgically spirituality. From the Ancient Greeks and Scythians to the Eygptians and Summerians. I have found in my studies that they all have an underlining connection being they all where originally propagated by the same source (Dragon Kindread of the Nine Nations). Should I ask this question on another post.
With Respect I have addressed.....
(frozen comment) no subject
Go in peace, but go, and do not continue to visit this journal.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2009-10-31 11:21 am (UTC)(link)I do not understand what has caused you issue regarding the above referrences. You must not have issue with the Annunaki when you are a priestess for a Sister of the Annunaki. Innana is a Summerian Goddess. The Summerian Gods/Goddess are the Annunaki.
I came to your site for your interrests magnetized me, and your acknowledgement or announcement that you are a priestess of those that are my kinds Ancestors. Know if you have true issue with my kind that I am not the only one that is watching your threads. I am only one that is verbal in regard to my Watch and I enjoy communicating with those whom show an affinity toward the Ancient ways as you have regarded.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2009-10-31 11:23 am (UTC)(link)