Does the God / Male Deity seem emasculated to you?

[habbalah]

Re: Does the God / Male Deity seem emasculated to you?

I was beginning to reach this conclusion too from this thread. It seems likely to me, that the gods know us better than we do, and know which archetypes we need in our lives. Right now, I'd quite like both Goddess and God to show their teeth. My boyfriend was attacked and mugged last night and I'm not feeling particularly fluffy right now.

I'm sorry to go off-topic, but holy crap. I'm sorry to hear that. I hope he's all right.

[Ophidia]

Re: Does the God / Male Deity seem emasculated to you?

I'm enjoying that other members are frequently asking the questions that are right on my tongue. Pagan Forum is offering me the laziest research method ever!

Yup, we're awesome like that, lol.

Oh to the OP and simply as no one else has mentioned it yet; have you read The Witches' God by Janet and Stewart Farrer? It is quite an interesting study of the male deity without the feminist flavour.

Another couple of decent books are Earth God Rising by Alan Richardson (although the author is not well-respected due to his co-authoring books about the whole 'Sangreal/alien blood/Arthurian/Christ' thingie - it even shows up a bit in Earth God Rising, but the concepts behind it are strong enough to withstand the whack-jobbery), and, even though it's not Pagan per se, King, Warrior, Magician, Lover by Douglas Gillette & Robert Moore.

A "soft" man is treated far less well than a hard-ass woman.

Except by other women - and I know this from personal experience.

[habbalah]

Re: Does the God / Male Deity seem emasculated to you?

Except by other women - and I know this from personal experience.

That's true. I should have said "by men".

[Vigdisdotter]

Re: Does the God / Male Deity seem emasculated to you?

I was beginning to reach this conclusion too from this thread. It seems likely to me, that the gods know us better than we do, and know which archetypes we need in our lives.

1) I'm a hard polytheist, so I don't do the whole "archetype" thing.

2) The idea that the gods are putting effort into show a given person a given thing strikes me as VERY egotistical. It's basically saying "Look, I'm special so that gods will cater to MY needs." This is something I'm very leery of as this kind of thinking often goes hand in hand with someone declaring they know what their god wants and then invading the neighbouring country or what have you.

To my mind, it's not about what the gods choose to show, but what the human is willing and able to SEE. Each of use filter our understandings through our perceptions and those are in turn based on our experiences. Someone who was raised by a physically abusive father (for the obvious example) will likely be filtering their understanding of "male" deities through this lens, even if only on a subconscious level. And the subconscious is a very powerful thing.

Now you compare this to someone whose father was outspoken, but fair and raising his children to be the same, the presentation of say Odin is likely to be very different. Not because the god is "showing different aspects" of himself, but because people see what they look for. Likewise, if someone is deliberately trying to fight their childhood experiences and conditioning, they may very well see a fair or even "sissy" god rather then a wrathful, frightening god.

[Dez]

Re: Does the God / Male Deity seem emasculated to you?

This thread is making for a very interesting read...good topic!

I agree a lot with the idea that what speaks to someone, whether it's in terms of a particular deity, or what they see in that particular deity, has a lot to do with their experiences and outlook. I think that there is a balance, though, with what Vigdisdotter is saying...while it's kinda inappropriate to assume that a god is doing all sorts of things "because you're special" (and pagans aren't the only ones that fall in to that kind of thinking), if you don't feel like a god speaks to you, teaches you lessons that you need to learn, why venerate them? I see a lot of heathens in particular who seem to have a lot of pride about making offerings to gods who are silent, and question the sanity of anyone who says that their deities speak to them, in any form. At that point, it seems to me as though all someone is worshipping is their own false pride.

As for the OP, like I have said elsewhere, the path that my husband and I are currently following is new for us. We were both raised in a very patriarchial culture, a religious system in which each man is considered a priest in his own home, able to speak for God, and a woman's value is almost entirely based on being a wife and mother. Heavenly Father is said to have a wife, but she is considered to be totally silent, and people are discouraged from speaking about her, much less honoring her.

It has been interesting to see what each of us have come out of that wanting, even needing, as we heal and grow.

At first, I anticipated being drawn to goddesses, for many of the reasons that have been mentioned: a painful relationship with my father, issues with male authority (and misuse of the same), and a lack of female role-models. And indeed, I have spent a lot of time learning a lot about various female figures from Norse and Germanic mythology, getting to know them, and discovering what lessons they can teach me about what it means to be female, and the many roles that can mean.

At the same time, though, the god who feels the most available to me, who speaks to me the most strongly, and really feels "there" in a tangible way, has been Freyr. He is not weak, in any sense (and the idea of someone purposefully downplaying and weakening gods is rather disgusting to me, and strikes me as reverse-misogyny). His strength comes with virility, not weapons. A surprising choice for me, to be honest. At first glance, I would have been much more comfortable dealing with a warrior god, which is one of those little things that would make me say he chose me, rather then the other way around.

My husband, on the other hand, has had very diffent experiences. A very patriarchial culture is very hard on the men on the bottom, as well as the women, and he does not have the right temperament to have ever succeeded in the culture we grew up in. This led to years of shame and pressure to conform and succeed according to the standards of the culture, as well as being treated like a failure by many people. Many of the "manly" concepts (being agressive, in particular, in any form) were also unacceptable. He has been drawn to Odin. I can't speak for him about the lessons that he is learning about that, but many seem to be about what it means to be a man, and how to succeed by adapting, particularly when your native personality doesn't "click" with the status quo. He hasn't dealt with goddesses at all at this point.

[GabrielWithoutWings]

Re: Does the God / Male Deity seem emasculated to you?

By an author with very heavy political involvement in politics and feminism and whose own path is notably goddess focused. That said, what on earth is off-balancing about "masculine without being aggressive (whatever that means) and that he'd never condone rape"?

Just that isn't what threw me off-balance. It's the fact that the book acted like there wasn't much else to say about the God. He's a good little boy, not naughty like that old desert god. Run a little damage control, de-fang him, and then pretty much toss him aside for THE GODDESS. Not that I have any problem with the Goddess.

Thing is, I've noticed this trend through books I've read and people I've interacted with on forums down through the years.

---------- Post added at 03:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:45 PM ----------

I was beginning to reach this conclusion too from this thread. It seems likely to me, that the gods know us better than we do, and know which archetypes we need in our lives. Right now, I'd quite like both Goddess and God to show their teeth. My boyfriend was attacked and mugged last night and I'm not feeling particularly fluffy right now.

I sorry, dear.

Hope he's all right.

---------- Post added at 03:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:46 PM ----------

Oh to the OP and simply as no one else has mentioned it yet; have you read The Witches' God by Janet and Stewart Farrer? It is quite an interesting study of the male deity without the feminist flavour. I'm not saying he is never described as a gentle lover in there, but I didn't feel he was emasculated. The Farrers tended not to candy coat much in their writing and although they are wiccan, I have met plenty of non-wiccan pagans who found inspiration in their books.

Embarrassingly, no, I haven't. I HAVE read Buckland's Big Blue Book. I have NOT read anything by the Farrars, which I should be ashamed of since they're part of that whole 70's foundational time.

Another couple of decent books are Earth God Rising by Alan Richardson (although the author is not well-respected due to his co-authoring books about the whole 'Sangreal/alien blood/Arthurian/Christ' thingie - it even shows up a bit in Earth God Rising, but the concepts behind it are strong enough to withstand the whack-jobbery), and, even though it's not Pagan per se, King, Warrior, Magician, Lover by Douglas Gillette & Robert Moore.

Thank you both for the book recommendations. I haven't heard of Alan Richardson.

---------- Post added at 04:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:49 PM ----------

To my mind, it's not about what the gods choose to show, but what the human is willing and able to SEE. Each of use filter our understandings through our perceptions and those are in turn based on our experiences. Someone who was raised by a physically abusive father (for the obvious example) will likely be filtering their understanding of "male" deities through this lens, even if only on a subconscious level. And the subconscious is a very powerful thing.

Now you compare this to someone whose father was outspoken, but fair and raising his children to be the same, the presentation of say Odin is likely to be very different. Not because the god is "showing different aspects" of himself, but because people see what they look for. Likewise, if someone is deliberately trying to fight their childhood experiences and conditioning, they may very well see a fair or even "sissy" god rather then a wrathful, frightening god.

This may be valid for some people, but I don't think my interpretation of what I read has anything to do with my childhood experiences and conditioning. The subconscious is a powerful thing, but I also have a conscious mind as well and, I think, one must not throw out our active thinking brain for our running-in-the-background subconscious.

I believe in another buffer between us and the Divine and that's the collective unconscious. I don't believe we'd be able to connect or understand the Divine at all if it weren't filtered through that lens. That, to me, is why the same themes keep recurring over and over and over again.

As a hard polytheist, you'll most likely not have this interpretation.

[Vigdisdotter]

Re: Does the God / Male Deity seem emasculated to you?

if you don't feel like a god speaks to you, teaches you lessons that you need to learn, why venerate them?

Exactly so. I think a lot of people forget that a relationship with the gods is a two way street. I would like to note that there is MANY shades of grey between "silent god" and "the gods think I'm so special...." I'm honestly a very big fan of those in-between places.

I see a lot of heathens in particular who seem to have a lot of pride about making offerings to gods who are silent, and question the sanity of anyone who says that their deities speak to them, in any form. At that point, it seems to me as though all someone is worshipping is their own false pride.

This honestly makes NOOOO sense to me as a Heathen. One of the under laying principles of heathen thought is gift for a gift; the reciprocal exchange being a basic part of ever level of life. If you go to someone's house and stay the night, there is an expectation of something being offered in exchange for the hospitality shown. And it's the same with the gods.

My personal theory, is I think a lot of folks (coming from a Christian background) have a very hard time understanding what Heathenry actually is--being a way of community living as well as worship--and subconsciously try to shoehorn it into whatever box they are familiar/comfortable with. that said, I doubt Heathenry is the only one where this is done. I suspect it's more about human nature then anything else. And this of course feeds right into how the male deities are perceived.

---------- Post added at 01:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:04 PM ----------

Thing is, I've noticed this trend through books I've read and people I've interacted with on forums down through the years.

Seeing as books, websites, blogs etc. are a representation of the author's own views and understanding, I have to wonder why this comes as a surprise, never mind that it puts you "off balance." As I pointed out in my other post, people will see things as filtered through their own experiences and understandings. Nothing says those will be the same for you as they are for someone else.

This may be valid for some people, but I don't think my interpretation of what I read has anything to do with my childhood experiences and conditioning.

Then you would be quite the anomaly and probably something other then human. I have yet to meet ANYONE that is completely untouched by their upbringing/life experiences.

but I also have a conscious mind as well and, I think, one must not throw out our active thinking brain for our running-in-the-background subconscious.

I agree, but that doesn't mean your conscious mind is the one calling the shots. It's a very large--not to mention dangerous--assumption to make that what you think consciously is the only influence in your decision making and preferences. Such an assumption is why I've seen so many fail to touch the gods: their conscious mind says the gods should be like ____________________ and they completely ignore anything that doesn't match that.

[Dez]

Re: Does the God / Male Deity seem emasculated to you?

Exactly so. I think a lot of people forget that a relationship with the gods is a two way street. I would like to note that there is MANY shades of grey between "silent god" and "the gods think I'm so special...." I'm honestly a very big fan of those in-between places.


This honestly makes NOOOO sense to me as a Heathen. One of the under laying principles of heathen thought is gift for a gift; the reciprocal exchange being a basic part of ever level of life. If you go to someone's house and stay the night, there is an expectation of something being offered in exchange for the hospitality shown. And it's the same with the gods.

My personal theory, is I think a lot of folks (coming from a Christian background) have a very hard time understanding what Heathenry actually is--being a way of community living as well as worship--and subconsciously try to shoehorn it into whatever box they are familiar/comfortable with. that said, I doubt Heathenry is the only one where this is done. I suspect it's more about human nature then anything else. And this of course feeds right into how the male deities are perceived.

That makes a LOT of sense to me, Vigdisdotter!

This is the last I'll say so we don't derail the thread, but I wonder if that's part of why heathery ends up being 1) more male oriented, and 2) more conservative then other beliefs under the pagan umbrella.

[GabrielWithoutWings]

Re: Does the God / Male Deity seem emasculated to you?

Seeing as books, websites, blogs etc. are a representation of the author's own views and understanding, I have to wonder why this comes as a surprise, never mind that it puts you "off balance." As I pointed out in my other post, people will see things as filtered through their own experiences and understandings. Nothing says those will be the same for you as they are for someone else.

I think I'm perfectly in the right when I read foundational literature from an author who, tired of partriarchal culture and feeling as if they have no divine representation, turns around and does the exact same thing in reverse as that which they were originally criticizing which causes me to note an apparent hypocrisy.

Also, if you think that every single piece of literature is simply "the author's own view and understanding," then we can subsequently announce that there is no tradition or foundational literature at all. There wouldn't be a Christianity without the commentary on the Old and New Testament. They'd just be "the author's own view and understanding." There's no Big Pagan Bible that I can just go pick up from the Gideon society, so contemporary interpretations by authors are pretty much what I have to go on, other than my own interpretation.

Then you would be quite the anomaly and probably something other then human. I have yet to meet ANYONE that is completely untouched by their upbringing/life experiences.

I never said that I was "completely untouched" by my upbringing. I'm saying that in the context of what I'm reading with my eyes in regards to a contemporary faith has nothing to do with my upbringing. I certainly think that it might have something to do with Starhawk's upbringing, however.

I agree, but that doesn't mean your conscious mind is the one calling the shots. It's a very large--not to mention dangerous--assumption to make that what you think consciously is the only influence in your decision making and preferences. Such an assumption is why I've seen so many fail to touch the gods: their conscious mind says the gods should be like ____________________ and they completely ignore anything that doesn't match that.

I never said that, either. I never said that my conscious brain is "the only influence in [my] decision making and preferences." I think you missed the part about the collective unconscious. But, I do believe it's unfair to stand the subconscious up on the pedestal as the end-all, be-all filter of how I react to stimuli. There's a reason that I don't like B. F. Skinner. It's because I think his theory is wrong.

[Vigdisdotter]

Re: Does the God / Male Deity seem emasculated to you?

I think I'm perfectly in the right when I read foundational literature from an author who, tired of partriarchal culture and feeling as if they have no divine representation, turns around and does the exact same thing in reverse as that which they were originally criticizing which causes me to note an apparent hypocrisy.

Um? Why? What is that accomplishing? After all, you don't HAVE to take anyone's say so for what a given god is like. It sounds to me less like a desire to understand and more like looking for an excuse to be annoyed.

Also, if you think that every single piece of literature is simply "the author's own view and understanding," then we can subsequently announce that there is no tradition or foundational literature at all.

Again, why? ALL traditions start with one person's understanding and their choosing to pass that understanding along. The worth of a given tradition or the existence of a it's "foundational literature" is in no one way diminished because it comes from one person's subjective understanding.

I never said that I was "completely untouched" by my upbringing. I'm saying that in the context of what I'm reading with my eyes in regards to a contemporary faith has nothing to do with my upbringing.

How you see it, does. This is my point. Everything does, from how you feel about jobs and paychecks to what a given god is or isn't. This is a basic part of human nature.

I certainly think that it might have something to do with Starhawk's upbringing, however.

Of this, I have no doubt. But I find it interesting that you are willing to accept this about her, but not yourself. Do you think this is a weakness or is a bad thing?

I think you missed the part about the collective unconscious.

No I didn't. It just wasn't relevant to what I said. Even if you believe int eh idea of the collective unconscious, this is not some overwhelming force that negates your own filters as set up by your childhood/experiences which is what you will be straining your experience withe collective unconscious through. So my point remains.

But, I do believe it's unfair to stand the subconscious up on the pedestal as the end-all, be-all filter of how I react to stimuli.[/QUOTE]

Seeing as I never did any such thing, this objection isn't relevant. The subconscious (which is were many of your most basic feelings and understandings reside) IS a factor and that was my point, as is the fact that we are unique individuals and thus so are out perceptual filters.

[GabrielWithoutWings]

Re: Does the God / Male Deity seem emasculated to you?

Um? Why? What is that accomplishing? After all, you don't HAVE to take anyone's say so for what a given god is like. It sounds to me less like a desire to understand and more like looking for an excuse to be annoyed.

I don't HAVE to do anything. But, Starhawk is (as I've said before) foundational literature for neo-paganism. If it wasn't for authors like her, I think it'd be a lot harder to conceptualize a non-Abrahamic contemporary neo-pagan-based theology. Authors like Starhawk (along with the rest of us) don't HAVE to take Jewish and Christian theology into account for what the Abrahamic god (and thus, their reactionary non-Abrahamic thealogy) is like but I can guarantee, you'll be a whole lot more educated if you do.

As for looking for an excuse to be annoyed, you may be right. That's why I posted this thread for discussion and debate, not because I have a desire to understand, but soley because I'm looking for an excuse to be annoyed.

Again, why? ALL traditions start with one person's understanding and their choosing to pass that understanding along. The worth of a given tradition or the existence of a it's "foundational literature" is in no one way diminished because it comes from one person's subjective understanding.

Of course it's diminished. That's the reason it's a tradition. It's something that's done over and over again, as opposed to being changed into something new by a new subjective interpretation.

My point was that I can't simply look at Starhawk as just offering an opinion on something already established. She was one of the trend-setters and I've noticed other pagan authors (like Cunningham) and posters on forums through the years doing the same thing. There seems to be a prevalence of people taking the God, either removing or reducing him, de-fanging him to make him more non-aggressive (and woman-friendly), and then elevating the Goddess to proportions that the very same worshipers complained about with the God in the first place.

How you see it, does. This is my point. Everything does, from how you feel about jobs and paychecks to what a given god is or isn't. This is a basic part of human nature.

Again, I never said that. You originally stated that me viewing the God as 'sissy' and whatnot was probably something derived from something in childhood experience, even though I've sourced that word to Starhawk (and in a similar vein, Cunningham) herself. That isn't something that I interpreted through the lens of my subconscious. That's something that I read with my eyes.

I'm not trying to be rude, Vig, but maybe you should stop trying to play armchair-psychologist? That is, unless you actually have a degree in behavioral psychology?

Of this, I have no doubt. But I find it interesting that you are willing to accept this about her, but not yourself. Do you think this is a weakness or is a bad thing?

See previous.

No I didn't. It just wasn't relevant to what I said. Even if you believe int eh idea of the collective unconscious, this is not some overwhelming force that negates your own filters as set up by your childhood/experiences which is what you will be straining your experience withe collective unconscious through. So my point remains.

As does mine, that you're elevating the subconscious mind over the unconscious and conscious mind. You can sit here and be B. F. Skinner all day long, but I'm going to counter it with Carl Jung.

So, we can agree to disagree.

Seeing as I never did any such thing, this objection isn't relevant. The subconscious (which is were many of your most basic feelings and understandings reside) IS a factor and that was my point, as is the fact that we are unique individuals and thus so are out perceptual filters.

Yes, you did. You elevated the subconscious over the conscious mind. You're sitting here telling me that the reason I'm seeing the God emasculated by Starhawk and other neo-pagans is due somehow to some experience, trauma or otherwise, that occurred in my upbringing and I'm telling you that my conscious mind is reading words on paper and pixel that doesn't really need to be interpreted by your subconscious. You basically just said that your active-thinking brain is less than your subconscious.

I never said the subconscious isn't a factor. I said that I disagree with you elevating it above the conscious and unconscious.

[Vigdisdotter]

Re: Does the God / Male Deity seem emasculated to you?

But, Starhawk is (as I've said before) foundational literature for neo-paganism. If it wasn't for authors like her, I think it'd be a lot harder to conceptualize a non-Abrahamic contemporary neo-pagan-based theology.

I would disagree. She's only one of many possible people/writings to draw from. I still run into people in this day and age who have never heard of her, let alone read The Spiral Dance. I think you're ascribing a lot more power to her then she has any right to. So it comes back to you and your wants, not the author or her book.

That's why I posted this thread for discussion and debate, not because I have a desire to understand, but soley because I'm looking for an excuse to be annoyed.

Feel free to show me otherwise. So far you have been shooting down what I've said without actually addressing it, and being rather defensive about it at that, not to mention repeatedly accusing me of saying things I never did. This is not conducive to discussion.

Of course it's diminished.

Why? A tradition being based on someone's personal perception (which is how ALL man-made religions get their start) isn't a bad or lesser thing.

That's the reason it's a tradition. It's something that's done over and over again, as opposed to being changed into something new by a new subjective interpretation.

Other then you, who is talking about CHANGING anything? Starhawk made her own tradition (reclaiming) and The Spiral Dance is one of the "foundational" books of her tradition.

Paganism isn't a single religion. It's an umbrella term that applies to hundreds if not thousands of religions, traditions and philosophies...not all of which are theistic. Why are you so put out that Starhawk and her tradition sees male deities as a given way?

My point was that I can't simply look at Starhawk as just offering an opinion on something already established.

Established by who? And who says "their" version is the correct one? Please refer back to the above point about what Paganism is and isn't.

She was one of the trend-setters and I've noticed other pagan authors (like Cunningham) and posters on forums through the years doing the same thing

Because they are human and this is how the human mind works (Something I've point out repeatedly) not because Starhawk has some kind of power over them.

You make it sound like those you disagree with are weak willed idiots that can't think for themselves are only following this "herd" you're decided is not only there, but wrong.

There seems to be a prevalence of people taking the God, either removing or reducing him, de-fanging him to make him more non-aggressive (and woman-friendly), and then elevating the Goddess to proportions that the very same worshipers complained about with the God in the first place.

No more so then any other version. Whatever you set out to look for you WILL find.

So again, why is this an issue?

You originally stated that me viewing the God as 'sissy' and whatnot was probably something derived from something in childhood experience

*blinkblink* Say what?

Go back and quote me. Show me where I said ANY such thing.

No wonder we're having a communication break down. You aren't even dealing with what I've said.

I'm not trying to be rude, Vig, but maybe you should stop trying to play armchair-psychologist? That is, unless you actually have a degree in behavioral psychology?

Why? Does the examination of the psychological aspect of spirituality threaten you? I see it as a very important part of the human condition and thus everything we do and thus perfectly relevant to the discussion at hand.

See previous.

That doesn't answer my question. This isn't going to do anywhere if you insist on putting words in my mouth.

As does mine, that you're elevating the subconscious mind over the unconscious and conscious mind.

Again, QUOTE me. Show me EXACTLY where I said any such thing. And double check your claim, because all I've ever done is point out the RELEVANCE of the subconscious, not put it above the conscious mind.

So, we can agree to disagree.

No, not as long as you insist on misrepresenting my position.

I said that I disagree with you elevating it above the conscious and unconscious.

That's nice, but since I haven't, this statement is neither here nor there.

[GabrielWithoutWings]

Re: Does the God / Male Deity seem emasculated to you?

Feel free to show me otherwise. So far you have been shooting down what I've said without actually addressing it, and being rather defensive about it at that, not to mention repeatedly accusing me of saying things I never did. This is not conducive to discussion.

Are you serious? You've been doing nothing but misquoting and putting words in my mouth throughout the entirety of this thread.

Paganism isn't a single religion. It's an umbrella term that applies to hundreds if not thousands of religions, traditions and philosophies...not all of which are theistic. Why are you so put out that Starhawk and her tradition sees male deities as a given way?

For probably the fourth time (I'm losing count), again: They made a tradition that took the male aspect of the deity, toned him down or removed him entirely, elevated the female aspect of deity, ascribed the qualities to the female that they complained about in the male, and then pointed their fingers at the Abrahamic god because he was such an aggressive asshole. It's blatant hypocrisy, to me.

You make it sound like those you disagree with are weak willed idiots that can't think for themselves are only following this "herd" you're decided is not only there, but wrong.

Oh, so now I'm a LHPer? Remember what I said about misquoting and putting words in my mouth? Here is a great example. I never said this. YOU said this.

You're the one that's come into this thread telling me what I'm thinking when I've done absolutely nothing of the sort to you.

*blinkblink* Say what?

Go back and quote me. Show me where I said ANY such thing.

No wonder we're having a communication break down. You aren't even dealing with what I've said.

Okay. Here you go:

Now you compare this to someone whose father was outspoken, but fair and raising his children to be the same, the presentation of say Odin is likely to be very different. Not because the god is "showing different aspects" of himself, but because people see what they look for. Likewise, if someone is deliberately trying to fight their childhood experiences and conditioning, they may very well see a fair or even "sissy" god rather then a wrathful, frightening god.

Since I'm the author of this thread, and it was this term in particular that I found off-putting, I'm assuming you were speaking directly about me in that my childhood experiences and conditioning are the reason that I'm bringing it up in the first place.

If that isn't what you meant, then perhaps you should be less ambiguous in your statements?

Why? Does the examination of the psychological aspect of spirituality threaten you? I see it as a very important part of the human condition and thus everything we do and thus perfectly relevant to the discussion at hand.

It being relevant to the discussion at hand is one thing. Coming in here and arrogantly telling me that you know my psychology better than I know my psychology will require you to present some type of professional degree. You can talk about yourself all you want. You start attempting to psychoanalyze me, and I'm gonna need some creds. Sorry.

That doesn't answer my question. This isn't going to do anywhere if you insist on putting words in my mouth.

And again, see previous. You're the one in here telling me that I said things when I didn't. Why don't you re-read our exchange. They're quite easy to spot.

Again, QUOTE me. Show me EXACTLY where I said any such thing. And double check your claim, because all I've ever done is point out the RELEVANCE of the subconscious, not put it above the conscious mind.

Statements like this:

I agree, but that doesn't mean your conscious mind is the one calling the shots. It's a very large--not to mention dangerous--assumption to make that what you think consciously is the only influence in your decision making and preferences. Such an assumption is why I've seen so many fail to touch the gods: their conscious mind says the gods should be like ____________________ and they completely ignore anything that doesn't match that.

I stated I agree with you, then you continue to represent your position of how the subconscious is somehow there in the background.

No, not as long as you insist on misrepresenting my position.

Should I go back and post all the times I've corrected you about making assumptions about my position?

[Dez]

Re: Does the God / Male Deity seem emasculated to you?

Ok, you two, I think we just crossed the line from intense debate to bickering.

I'm not going to put a mod hat on yet, but I will remind you both that our forum rules don't allow for rudeness and name calling, before we get to that point.

Both of you have good points. Honestly, though, I'd never even heard of this woman before this thread, and I think the thread itself shows that at least here on this forum, most people have a more balanced view then her writings.

Just because someone is a squeaky wheel, doesn't mean they speak for everyone.

Now, how about people give this thread a break, take a walk. It's been a very interesting discussion, and I'd hate to see it dissolve into flaming.

[thalassa]

Re: Does the God / Male Deity seem emasculated to you?

I would disagree. She's only one of many possible people/writings to draw from. I still run into people in this day and age who have never heard of her, let alone read The Spiral Dance. I think you're ascribing a lot more power to her then she has any right to. So it comes back to you and your wants, not the author or her book.

I would completely disagree with this. Starhawk was a pivotal author in expanding neo-Paganism--particularly anyone of a Wiccan or Wiccan-inspired or Wiccanesque path--into the US, and in changing the shape of neo-Paganism for quite some time, from which it has probably in the last 5-10 years truly shown itself to be recovering from. In this day and age of Paganism via the internet, I'm not surprised people haven't heard of her....particularly if they are is a specific tradition in which they haven't looked at neo-Pagansim as a movement. Whether or not someone has heard of her, or read Spiral Dance, or not, doesn't change her work having had a huge influence...while I'm not sure I would have described it as "foundational", bickering over the wording seems a bit like nitpicking.