Dear Media: Isis is a Goddess

What started me on posting about this issue at this particular moment is Susan Morgaine Stanley's March 20 post on The Motherhouse of the Goddess blog,  "Ritual for Reclaiming the Name of the Goddess ISIS."  Susan writes that listening to the news one night, she again heard  the name of this Goddess used to describe a terrorist organization. She continues:
"I immediately cringed and once again, felt sick inside. I think that for most of us who practice a Goddess-based spirituality, the name of our beloved Goddess becoming the name of an international terrorist organization, is painful....I also began to realize that I just did not want to sit back any longer. I wanted to fight against Her name being taken in vain."
She then offers a ritual, complete with  instructions,  actions,  words, and pics.

I then came across a Feb. 10 post on The Wild Hunt blog by Terence P Ward, "Facebook Deletes 'Following Isis' Group."  And then there is the statement on the Fellowship of Isis website. Some may say "it's just an acronym, get over it." But I can't.  At this point, some newspapers, such as Britain's The Guardian, don't even capitalize all four letters, as is appropriate for an acronym. Here's one example from its U.S. online edition in coverage of the Brussels attacks . And here is the same mistake in its Global edition.

All of these led me to Google "goddess isis terrorist." Here are just some of the links you can find there:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/21/world/europe/when-youre-named-isis-for-the-goddess-not-the-terror-group.html?_r=0

http://sacredcenters.com/in-the-name-of-the-goddess-isis-and-the-thugs-of-iraq/

http://yournewswire.com/goddess-isis-has-magical-powers-stop-associating-her-with-the-islamic-state/

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/isis-thousands-ask-media-stop-using-acronym-islamic-state-1530096

Women's Equality Day Challenges

The celebration of Women’s Equality Day in the U.S. tomorrow comes with a special urgency this year, 2013. Women’s rights are under attack, especially from the right wing of the Republican party, with their so-called reasoning often based in religious doctrine.

The U.S. has been marking Women’s Equality Day since 1971 when, at the urging of the late Rep. Bella Abzug (D-NY), a Congressional and then Presidential proclamation was issued designating Women’s Equality Day to commemorate the passage of the 19^th Amendment to the Constitution in 1920 that gave women the right to vote. The Day's purpose is also to continue a focus on women’s issues. Every President since 1971 has issued a Women’s Equality Day proclamation,  including this year’s proclamation by President Obama.

 On this Women’s Equality Day, both the right to vote and women’s health care are among the issues backtracking to what seems to me like the middle ages, but is probably more accurately the early 20^th century for voting and the mid-20^th century for health care. In the wake of the recent SCOTUS decision on the Voting Rights Act, Republican-led State actions, such as curbing voting hours and requiring photo IDS, impact not only minorities and university students but also women. In addition—and more specific in its aim—health care for women is increasingly imperiled by a growing number of laws in a growing number of States aiming to get around the 1973 Roe v.Wade SCOTUS legalization of abortion. Among other things, these State actions set up impossible-to-meet requirements that result in the closing clinics which include safe and legal abortion in the health care they provide to women. The anti-abortion advocates often give biblical scripture as source for their sometimes violent actions, and for the imposition of tests such as transvaginal ultrasound, which, when performed without the patient’s consent as these proposals require, fits the definition of rape. In general, this maltreatment of women can be seen as an outcome of the interpretations and doctrines particularly in fundamentalist religions that give men dominion over women, and insist on speaking of deity in masculine/male-only language. The impact of fundamentalist religion has caused a backtracking on a trend to more egalitarian language in public prayer and references to deity. For example, I don’t remember ever hearing William Jefferson Clinton, while president, referring to deity by gender. He used the term God, but did not combine it with “he” or “Lord” or any other gendered term. This is not true of President Obama, whom I have heard use masculine pronouns when speaking of deity when he could have easily just left off the pronouns. Others seem to be following the President's example. Yesterday, in the speeches at the commemoration of the 1963 March on Washington for Civil Rights, in the prayers I heard, all god-language was male/masculine, including prayers by women. This use of exclusively masculine-gendered words for deity reinforces, empowers, enables the ongoing political actions imperiling women’s rights.

The backtracking-on-women’s-issues trend has made its way into parts of the Pagan community. A number Pagans, both women and men, use the supposedly generic term “gods” when referring to both male and female deities. Pagans can’t even make the argument that these deities are ungendered as those in Abrahamic religion try to do when they use the word God (followed by “He.”) When you use “gods” to include female deities, it disappears the female deities; a god in Paganism is widely understood to be male. This is just one of the ways that fundamentalism or right-wing thinking is influencing Pagan thought and practices among some Pagans—and again, I’m not just talking about men. I think, for the most part, this is not intentional, it is just that we are influenced by the dominant culture we live in and unconsciously adopt its practices and sometimes beliefs, though they may be somewhat disguised so that the bias is not easily recognized. It is, however, easily remedied (and I know you want to remedy this, right?) by using “gods and goddesses” alternating with “goddesses and gods”; or, when writing, god/dess; or using inclusive terms such as deities and divinities.

This Women’s Equality Day, let’s see if we can become conscious of practices in our communities that go counter to equal treatment of women. Maybe we can call it Pagan consciousness-raising—a first step to restored equality.

 

 

REVIEW: 'Cow' by Susan Hawthorne

Cow by Susan Hawthorne (Spinifex 2011), 166 pages, trade paperback

What an extraordinary book of poetry this is! It’s all about cows! Or is it?

In the second poem of the book, Queenie, a cow who could be called the protagonist or main character, tells us:

these are stories about cows
who have lost their histories.

To me these poems are also about women and goddesses whose histories we have lost.

In her "acknowledgements" prefacing the poetry, Susan Hawthorne, an Australian, explains that she wrote most of the poems while studying in India, and that they are influenced by many poetic traditions, including Greek lyric poetry and the multi-vocal approach of Tamil poetry, including the Tamil Sangam tradition of love poetry, often written in women’s voices. The Tamil influences appear most obviously in Cows in the multitude of "voices" and the poem titles, such as "what Queenie says," "what Fatima says about Queenie," "what Queenie says about Meena," and so forth.

I found the structure and style of the book fascinating. In addition to the multi-vocal approach, Hawthorne divides the book into "strings." (I Googled "cows+strings" and found that 3 associations are: a term used by producers for a group of cows; natural gut strings used for tennis rackets; and spherical cow theory, which is part of physics string theory.) The first voice of "string one" is "the philosophy cow." We then enter "Queenie’s dillie bag" in which Queenie and an assortment of other "cows" talk about themselves, each other, and various subjects. "String two" opens with "what the philosophers say," comments from Diotoma and Gargi. What follows is a section called , "Queenie’s tongue," where we delve into different aspects and meanings of tongue(s). String three opens with a beautiful lyric poem, "what the lovers say" and then, many voices tell about "Queenie’s loves." The fourth and final string is "what Queenie says about the philosophy cow."

Interwoven with the cow talk are mythological allusions and references to today’s feminist/women’s issues. The cows/goddesses/women speak in contemporary colloquial English. For example, here are two excerpts from a poem entitled, "what Queenie says about Sita." The poem, related to the Indian epic, Ramayana, begins:

Sita is no slouch just a woman
in the tumult of emotion
she tries to help her man get a life
get out and about
she says why not follow that deer dear
she needs time alone
but it’s always hard for women
to find solitude
Sita is no different

Later in the poem is this:

Ravana too doesn’t get it
what is it with these men?
can’t they tell the difference
between great conversation and desire for sex?
(in the case of Ravena)

or great love lust and passion
but no wish to give up on
intellectual pursuits
for housework sitting pretty
and emotional deserts?
(in the case of Rama)

The goddesses referenced in the poems include (but are not limited to) Al-lat, Demeter, Persephone, Kalypso, Lakshmi, Sarasvati, Ereshkigal, Durga, Leto, Mahadevi, Meena, Bhudevi, Baubo, Hecate (in this book aka Ekaterina), Trivia, Hera, Hathor and Artemis. Historical women alluded to include Io, Guinevere, Simone Weil, Diotima, Gertrude Stein, and Sappho, along with several of her companions and lovers and her daughter, Cleis. Hawthorne also alludes to the work of Socrates, Robin Morgan, Monique Wittig, and others.

She also draws on her knowledge of Sanskrit and other languages. Before the poetry begins, she gives the multilingual etymologies of "Cow," and "Queen." When she uses terms in a variety of languages that may not be known to most readers, she places the words' definitions and often derivations in the margins of the poems. Other information about mythological and other allusions are included in the extensive Notes at the end of the book, which begin with a pronunciation explanation.

Many of the poems seem at first glance to be about commonplace subjects, but upon full reading have mythical, mystical, and metaphysical meaning. For example, in the poem, "what she says about the anatomy of a cow pat" in string two, what can be taken for a down-to-earth description of cow dung in various parts of the world includes mythological allusions here and there and ultimately becomes what could be described as mystical.

The poetry is written in a variety of forms. For instance in string three the poem "what the pedant says," is what I would call, being pedantic, pantoum-like,or perhaps what is called an "imperfect pantoum" (or it may be a form with which I am—don’t tell—unfamiliar). Like a pantoum, the stanzas of "what the pedant says," are linked by a pattern of repeating lines. However, the lines that repeat aren't the same numerically as in a proper pantoum and the stanzas are 8 lines rather than 4 lines. In any event, the repetition for me was very effective, even ritualistic. String two opens with the increasingly lyrical and sensuous, "what the lovers say." Many of the poems in the section that follows, "Queenie's loves," also have these qualities and are written in a variety of interesting forms. For example, in "what she sings to her maiden aunt," the concluding line of each 3-line stanza is a slightly varied refrain, and "what we sing in one voice" is a beautiful villanelle, with echos of Dylan Thomas’s "Do Not Go Gentle..." but with very different intent and focus.

This is Susan Hawthorne’s 6th book of poetry. She has also published one novel, two books of non-fiction, and been editor or co-editor of several anthologies. She is the publisher of Spinifex Press in Melbourne, and an adjunct professor in the writing program at James Cook University in Queensland, Australia.

Cow is a multilayered, innovative book. Even the cover design is unusual. Both the front and back covers are covered with a cow photo-montage, with the only type on the front cover being the name of the publisher, integrated in such a way as to make it part of the montage. The title of the book and the name of the author appear only on the bright pink spine. The photo montage is a collaboration between Hawthorne, who supplied the cow photos, and the cover designer, Deb Snibson. Cover to cover, Cow is simultaneously a wonderful work of scholarship, of craft—and of art.

Study Guide Available in Ebook Formats

A study and discussion guide to the four Kabbalah chapters in my award-winning book, Goddess Spirituality for the 21st Century, is now available as a low-priced ebook, titled Exploring Re-Visioned Kabbalah: Study Guide for the 4 Kabbalah Chapters in Goddess Spirituality for the 21st Century from Kabbalah to Quantum Physics. (Yes, it's a long title; I wanted to be clear about exactly what the ebook is.)

Something happened while I was working in PhotoShop on the ebook that might be considered sychronicity or fortunate coincidence. I think of it as Goddess guidance. Probably many of us working in creative fields experience something like this fairly often. I was trying to come up with art for the "cover" and was going to use art I had posted on Cafepress and Zazzle in the past, showing, among other things, the design that the re-envisioning I did of the Tree of Life forms among the Tree's round areas (known as sefirot). The lavender and rose-gold connecting lines were a little hard to see computer-sized against the green background I had used previously for the art (behind which was a black background) so I turned off the green layer. Wow! says I to myself, the whole thing looks great against the black. And so it is.

The new study/discussion guide is in addition to the shorter study guide for all chapters of the book included in its Combined Second Edition. The new, separate, ebook guide is meant for readers, teachers, and discussion leaders who want a more extensive guide to the book's chapters 2-5 describing and giving the history of Jewish Kabbalah and Hermetic Qabalah, and proposing a more egalitarian kabbalistic Tree of Life. The new guide is available as a Kindle E-Book, a NOOKbook, and at Diesel eBook Store, Sony Ebook Store, Smashwords in multiple formats, and at other ebook vendors. Its intended U.S. price is $2.99, and hopefully it's comparatively priced elsewhere. BTW, if you like the black background design, I've put it on Zazzle (on t-shirts and posters) but I haven't gotten around to putting it on Cafepress yet. Somebody remind me...LOL

REVIEW: Book on Dianic Wicca by Kristy Coleman

Re-riting Woman: Dianic Wicca and the Feminine Divine by Kristy S. Coleman, Alta Mira Press/Rowman & Littlefield, 2010, trade paperback, 254 pages

What a fascinating book! As the author, Kristy S. Coleman explains in her Introduction, it is the "first in-depth ethnographic study of Dianic Wicca." It focuses on the form practiced by the Circle of Aradia (COA) in Los Angeles, mostly in the years that Ruth Barrett was high priestess (1988-2000). Coleman was initiated into COA during her 4-year study (1998-2002) of the group, which she undertook for her doctoral dissertation. At the time the dissertation was written, Coleman had been "investigating" what she calls "the feminine Divine" for 10 years. In defining her approach as "ethnographic," Coleman is considering Dianic Witchcraft as separate culture.

Though part of a scholarly series and thus having a scholarly approach, the book is written so that it can be understood by non-academics as well, with Coleman taking special care to define terms that might be obscure to non-academics and to explain Dianic and more general Pagan practices and views for those who unfamiliar with them. She even explains why she is capitalizing or not capitalizing certain words. For example, in the endnotes ("Notes") to the Introduction she explains that she capitalizes Goddess when referring to the "contemporary worship of the Divine in female form," while using the noncapitalized goddess or goddesses when referring to female deities throughout history worshiped in many cultures. She follows the standard for the publisher’s Pagan Studies Series, of which this book is a part, which capitalizes Witch, Witchcraft and Pagan when referring to today’s followers of these religious paths, but does not capitalize them when they refer to terms used, especially pre-20th century, for the purpose of persecution or denoting a negative connotation. The book also contains a glossary.

The undergirding thesis of Re-riting Woman is Coleman’s comparison of Dianic Witchcraft to the theories of French feminist philosopher Luce Irigaray . Coleman finds that Irigaray presents theoretical concepts that support the Dianic approach: Irigaray theorizes that women should meet separately from men and create woman-identified space; Dianics do this. Irigaray suggests women image the divine in their own form; Dianics do this. In her Introduction Coleman mentions several other instances where what Irigaray proposes in theory Dianics do in fact. Coleman proposes that "Dianics create an alternative symbolic structure in their rituals" that causes a shift in the perception of reality, "and in particular re(w)rites the valuation and meaning of woman." (italics Coleman’s) She comments that she had wanted to use the term "re(w)riting" in the book title, but it was decided to use "re-riting" instead because some Internet search engines didn’t recognize parentheses.

Before going further, I need to tell you that I am not a Dianic Witch, nor do I identify as any kind of Witch or Wiccan. I have, however, attended Witch/Wiccan rituals of several types (but not in California) including Dianic, which I liked more than some of the others.

In the first chapter of Re-riting Woman, Coleman tells of her first experience attending a Dianic ritual and of the herstory and basic teachings of Dianic Witchcraft. In particular she gives portraits, in both words and wonderful big b&w pictures of Z Budapest and Ruth Barrett. She describes the beginning of the all-women form of Dianic Witchcraft in the United States as it was founded by Z Budapest, who, when she left Los Angeles in 1980, ordained Ruth Barrett high priestess charged with continuing the tradition in the LA area. She goes on to describe the formation, structure and teachings of the Circle of Aradia, incorporated as a 501(c)not-for-profit religious organization in 1993.

The second chapter is devoted to explaining "The Dianic Religion" including "what a Witch is and is not," ethics, hexing, and understanding of the Goddess. Coleman writes that Ruth Barrett rejects the idea of Goddess as archetype and quotes Barrett as saying that for Dianics, "the Goddess encompasses all: She contains the male." The chapter also has an introductory discussion of ritual and magic (but not how to do it). In this chapter and throughout the book, Z Budapest and Ruth Barrett are the only Dianic Witches whose "real" names are given. Others are identified by first name pseudonyms only. In various parts of the book, but perhaps most pointedly in Chapters 2 and 3, Coleman takes issue with Cynthia Eller, who has written controversial books that attempt to analyze Goddess spirituality groups. In chapter 3, under the subhead, "Religion," Coleman writes:

In Living in the Lap of the Goddess, Cynthia Eller offers an example of the dismissive view. She draws on "deprivation theory" to explain (away) the empowering effects of ritual within Goddess spirituality.... Kimberly Patton criticizes this scholarly phenomenon of "methodological condescension".... [Eller] views feminist spiritualists as angry because they have not received the social and political advances they have thought would result from the feminist movement. Thus...they resort to magic and ritual.

Coleman gives examples of women in COA whose demeanor and reasons for being Dianic do not support Eller’s views and concludes:

The tradition and the feminist milieu that the [COA] tradition creates appear a far more convincing explanation for the attraction of this tradition or feminist spirituality at large, than Eller’s proposal that women are seeking the power the feminist movement failed to provide.

The fourth chapter discusses COA seasonal rituals, of which there are 8. Coleman agreed to give details of only the 7 public rituals. The 8th, Brigid, is held for members of COA only and is their initiatory ritual. These are the solar rituals celebrated widely in the Pagan community, but the Dianic symbolism and some of the practices associated with them differ from groups that include male deity(ies)—and even from some other groups in which female deity is primary. Coleman goes into a good deal of detail in her descriptions, and many readers will find this one of the more compelling chapters of the book.

The fifth chapter is an in-depth look at the Irigaray’s views and how they relate to Dianic Witchcraft. Coleman points out that the philosopher and Dianics have in common the goals of: "(1) exposing the system of oppression (2) acknowledging its effects, and (3) creating a new imaginary...."(Imaginary in this use refers to images and fantasy-like stories—we might say mything or re-mything). She finds, however, that Dianic practices effect change better than Irigaray’s writing because

an alternative symbolic is not merely imagined, nor do they [Dianics] so much ponder or theorize what it would or would not be, but on a number of levels they perform it.

In making Irigaray an integral part of this book, Coleman has adopted her use of the noun "the feminine" translated from the French,"le féminin". (Yes, I am now going to get all grammary on you.) In English, Coleman not only uses the term as a noun but also as an adjective modifying, for example, "Divine" (as in "feminine Divine"). She says that we are not to understand this English word "feminine" as meaning "femininity." OK, I can accept that the noun "the feminine," the noun "femininity," and the adjective "feminine" don’t have identical meaning. But I still am uncomfortable with the word "feminine" modifying divine for reasons previously posted here . Coleman says that many COA members are not fond of it either. I think that at least part of the problem is that the term, translated from French, shares the difficulties of translating from any language to another. In addition, Coleman is using Irigaray’s "le féminin" with Irigaray’s re-defining to mean that whatever the real (unsocialized, unrepressed) traits of women may be, women and women’s traits are devalued in Western (and I would add many Eastern) cultures, and that there is something missing, lost, unremembered in le féminin. Although Coleman doesn’t mention it, there may be a "hint" of this meaning in French grammar since the gender of this noun in French is masculine! Could this be interpreted as the language itself telling us that "le féminin" is seen through a masculine (male?) lens? No such "hint" is present in English, which doesn't gender nouns. Also, even before Irigaray's re-definition, le féminin does not translate exactly into the English "the feminine." For example, while the English,"the feminine" connotes socially contrived gender traits, the French "le féminin" includes most of what "female" means in English, that is biological traits. To go a little further, les femmes (n. pl) in French means both women and female; la femme (n. sing.) means woman; les hommes translates to both men and male, l’homme means man. (btw book editors: the French word for man, homme, is misspelled as "home" on p. 136 in a discussion of Irigary’s wordplay on hom[m]osexual.) My point is that one needs to be careful when taking a term from one language and translating it into another. Complicating matters further, Coleman appears to be taking a noun which Irigaray has given an alternative meaning, and then attaching it as an adjective to, for example, "divine" and assuming it can be understood by English-speakers as something other than it’s usual meaning . I question whether this is appropriate especially when speaking of Dianic understanding of the divine since Dianics, as Coleman explains in this book, integrate women’s physiology and biology into their understanding of Goddess and other parts of their religion. It's important to note, however, that that "feminine Divine" is not the only term Coleman uses to describe Goddess. Examples of some of the other terms she uses are quoted in this review.

In the fifth chapter, Coleman discusses the relevance to Irigaray of Hegel’s and Heidigger’s philosophies, Freudian theory, and the views of Jacques Lucan, Mary Daly, Margaret Miles, Grace Jantzen, Drucilla Cornell, and others. She concludes that both Irigaray and the Dianics:

First, recognize that the dominant patriarchal system of representation is perilously limited and inaccurate. Second, realize that this system is founded upon the erasure—repression and devaluation—of the maternal/feminine....Third, return to the maternal origin, clearly inexpressible or unknowable at this stage....Dianics took consciousness-raising and feminist politics of the 1970s into the realm of the spiritual. Irigaray...lugged an intellectual history...into the realm of mystery.

In the sixth chapter, Coleman uses a number of "theoretical tools" to take a further look at the significance of Dianic rituals. She finds the rituals highly effective, and explains why rituals "can be a powerful choice...for the achievement of the Dianics' goal: to eradicate patriarchy ‘within and without’." In analyzing rituals through semiotics (study of the arbitrary relationship between words and their meanings), Coleman writes:

[Dianic] practice is not just an affront to patriarchy, but arguably destabilizes Western metaphysics....This potential is, in my view, the impetus behind the vicious attacks on both scholarship and practices that seriously consider a historical or contemporary conceptualization of the Divine as female.

In chapter 7, Coleman takes a look at the "problems and potentials" within COA. The most troubling to her is the disconnect between the COA’s rejection of hierarchy in theory and the presence of hierarchy within COA—at least at the time of her study. There have been changes since then. After Ruth Barrett ordained the next high priestess before she leaving for Wisconsin where, with her life partner she established the Temple of Diana, and after the appointed COA high priestess resigned, COA decided by consensus to not ordain or appoint another high priestess but rather embark on a shared leadership model. Circle of Aradia is now an affiliate of the Temple of Diana, also incorporated as a 501(c)3.

The discussion of COA’s coping with hierarchical tendencies may be instructive to other groups struggling between a desire for equality within its membership and the need for leadership, between the desire to give everyone equal opportunity to participate in significant roles and the feeling that excellence should be rewarded and spotlighted. Other issues explored in chapters 7 and 8 include power, control, and perceived favoritism. The material in chapter 8 includes additional interviews with COA participants on these subjects. Such issues will be familiar to many of you who have established or are attempting to establish a consensus, or partnership , or sharing model—whether it be in a religious/spiritual organization, at work, at play, or at home—and establishing it in a society in which most of us were raised in the hierarchical competitive model and which still supports that model. As Coleman observes:

CoA is not unique in failing to uphold this egalitarian ideal. However the very presence of a critical awareness of the tendency for power to be used hierarchically seems to be progressive.

In her "Conclusion," Coleman takes a look back at her dissertation research several years after its completion. Among her observations is that

a thealogical move to Goddess does not of itself dispel an active...system of power-over....

Re-riting Woman is a wonderfully useful text for college-level courses, especially in women’s studies, philosophy, religion, and probably some other areas I haven’t thought of. It is also likely to be valuable to groups and individuals outside the academy who, like me, find the subject matter and the approach taken by Coleman absorbing, intriguing, and yes, fascinating.

A hardcover edition of Re-riting Woman was published about a year ago at a much higher price, as is common with academic texts. I want to commend the author, series editors, and publisher for making it available in this more affordable trade paperback edition, which emerged last month. It is part of Alta Mira’s Pagan Studies Series, whose editors are Wendy Griffin and Chas S. Clifton. Kristy S. Coleman received her Ph.D in Religion and Culture from Claremont Graduate University and is now an adjunct professor at San Jose State University.

Goddessian, pronunciation

Some time ago I wrote a post on the term, "Goddessian." I've come across at least one person on the 'net who thinks this word sounds "ugly." While it could be that "ugly" is in the perception of the speaker or listener, it is also possible that this person is having trouble pronouncing the word. The correct pronunciation puts the accent on the second syllable: God dess' i an.

To me, that's beauty.

I've updated the previous post to show the pronunciation.

Praying at the DNC

I want to share part of a comment I just posted on Blue Pagans at the DNC in response to a post praising the interfaith service held Sunday night, but my stronger concern is really the language used to address deity in the "benediction" last night (Monday night). Here's part of what I wrote:

... We've taken such GREAT strides that an "interfaith" program that includes only 3 Abrahamic religions and Buddhism is considered fulfilling the term "interfaith"? And as much as I deeply appreciated Leah Daughtry's comment that the Creator could be a "he" or a "she" the fact that this is considered an unusual statement some 30 years after the spiritual feminist movement began speaks volumes about the persistance of patriarchal thinking--probably more so in religion than in other areas. To top it all off, we were treated Monday night to a "Benediction" by Don Miller, billed as an author and speaker on "Christian spirituality," who addressed deity as "Father God," a term rarely used. Usually "Father" or "God" or "Lord" is enough to get the idea across. But no, Miller had to be SURE that we understood that God is Father and NOT Mother.... I can only conclude that at this point the Democrats are more concerned with wooing evangelical and/or fundamentalist Christians than they are about excluding women of a variety of religious paths--including not only Pagan, but also, for example, Christian and Jewish, who have been working for decades to achieve degendered and/or inclusive "god" language.Seems the Democrats need some education on this topic. Maybe some of you are attending the Women's Caucus and could bring this up?

TAGS:news Democratic National Convention prayer spiritual feminism Leah Daughtry women and religion Don Miller

Female? Feminine?

Like an intestinal bug, it twists my gut when people use the term "feminine divine" or "divine feminine" when what is meant is female deity or the divine represented as female. I keep thinking that like many gut bugs, this misleading use of language might just go away on its own – but no such luck, although it does seem to have an ebb and flow. Unfortunately these last few months...or is it years?...the flow seems to be approaching high tide. So blog I must.

A little history/herstory first (at least as I see it). My memory (what an authority!) tells me that "divine feminine" (or v/v) came into usage sometime in the 1980s by people, some of them authors, who wanted to discuss female deity (or female deities, or female aspects of the divine) but didn’t want to use the word Goddess or wanted to talk about the subject in a non-religious, even not specifically spiritual context. Often they also didn’t want their views to be construed as feminist. Sometimes these were New Agers or people approaching the newly emerging Goddess movement from a psychological view ("it helps women feel better", or "it helps women find themselves") who talked about the "feminine within" or "inner feminine" both for men and women. See, men could be "feminine" too, as long as it was kept inside. Though I think that helping women "feel better" or "find themselves" may be a worthy goal and is part of the picture for some interested in Goddess, it is not by any means the full picture and it diminishes the power (and empowerment) of Goddess by making the role of the divine less than in other religions or spiritual paths.

As for men finding their "inner feminine," well that brings us to: Exactly what do we mean by "feminine?" For just a definition, "feminine" means female-like. But like many dictionary definitions, this doesn’t go far enough and gives only a hint of its meaning in actual usage. In current usage, "masculine" refers to traits a culture attaches to males/men and"feminine" refer to traits that a culture attaches to females/women. Whether these traits are "nature" or "nurture"– that is whether they are linked to biology or to cultural conditioning– is not clear. Since it is very difficult at this time to tease out nature from nurture, I go with the supposition these traits are all culturally contrived because this allows the most freedom to the individual person. So, for example, for boys and girls, an inclination to play with guns has been defined in Western society as a "masculine" trait while preferring to play with dolls has been defined in our culture as a "feminine" trait. To take it a little further, "active" or "aggressive" actions are considered masculine and "passivity" or "gentleness" is considered feminine. While some will say that testosterone ( a "male" hormone) is related to belligerence and aggressiveness and estrogen (a "female" hormone) to passivity, the actual biology is much fuzzier because both men and women have both testosterone and estrogen, only in different proportions. So that even if there is some biological inclination to some personality traits, it hasn’t been proven that it is stronger than the acculturation of men and women to behave in certain ways.

Most culturally-defined traits attached to "masculine and feminine" do not refer to body parts or embodiment at all. Yet when I use the term "Goddess," what I mean is the embodiment or personification of the divine as female. To me, "Goddess" implies that the totality of the Divine can be imaged as female. Whether you believe this means concrete deities or a metaphor, or some abstract state of being, or the Earth, or the Universe, the term Goddess implies that this/these can be represented by female images and imagery–by female body parts, by biologically-linked experiences and activities such as menstruating, giving birth, and the female experience of orgasm (which is not the same as the male experience– and if you don’t think that the male ejaculation has been used to characterize deity, including the biblical God, I refer you for starters to the book, Circle in the Square by Elliot Wolfson.)

As you can see (I hope), what I am describing is quite different from the image of a deity that has both male and female aspects–although actually I think there are some instances of such imaging where talking about the "feminine" and "masculine" divine may be appropriate. For example, in Judaism, the figure (or idea) of the Shekhinah could be termed "feminine divine" when it is spoken of as the feminine aspect of the Godhead – as long there is no embodiment –that is as long as neither Shekhinah nor the the Godhead is presented as having any physical characteristics. Though this may sometimes be (or have been) the intent, in actuality, my guess is this is rare, and with the trend today to image Shekhinah more concretely, even this usage is becoming more female than feminine.

Some people who do not intend to imply cultural traits use the term "divine feminine" anyway because well, they heard it somewhere and it flows kind of easy off the tongue and it has (in their minds) a certain lack of specificity which allows them to slide away from questions about whether their position is feminist and maybe it will attract more men to their groups/workshops/books, etc. if the men can talk about their "inner feminine." Others don’t want to use the word "Goddess" because they are trying to stay within a Christian or Jewish framework and "Goddess" is, well, crossing the line. Still others feel the term "Goddess" implies reconstruction of past religions with which they may not fully agree. As someone who at first (in the 1970s–but not now) didn’t like the term "Goddess" because I felt the -ess ending was a diminutive, I can sympathize with the search for another term. But "divine feminine" ain’t it! At least not if you’re talking in terms of personification or embodiment, whether that embodiment is a woman’s body, the Earth’s body (see Rachel Pollack’s The Body of the Goddess for a lovely elucidation of this pov), or the entire Universe as divine.

If you’re not comfortable with the word "Goddess," what other terms can you use to avoid the misunderstandings that the use of "divine feminine" engenders? Some people use "Great Mother," although limiting divinity to maternal imagery has distinct limitations. Jenny Kien (a PhD neurobiologist) uses the term "Divine Woman" in her book, Reinstating the Divine Woman in Judaism. Others use the term "Divine Female" or "Divine as Female" or "Divine Embodied as Female." Glenys Livingstone (a PhD social ecologist) in her current book, PaGaian Cosmology, uses several different terms including "Female Metaphor," "Earth-Gaia" (meaning Earth and the entire cosmos), along with "Goddess," and more specific Goddess aspects or names.

If you are now using "feminine divine" or "divine feminine" just because it’s easy, not because it’s what you really mean, you might consider using instead one or more of the alternatives I've mentioned. Or like Livingstone, as well as others including Carol P. Christ (a PhD theologian) in She Who Changes, and Judith Laura (yes, moi) in Goddess Spirituality for the 21st Century (especially the last chapter), you might consider redefining "Goddess" to downplay the focus on reconstruction of past traditions and spotlight the incorporation of more modern meanings.

TAGS:life divine feminine feminist theology feminine divine linquistics women and religion Goddess

Where Are We Now?

HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO US!!!

While we were out partying, Medusa Coils passed her first blogerversary (or is it bloggerbday?). Our first post, "Why are We Here?" , appeared July 1, 2006. We’ve accomplished many of the goals we set for ourselves and plan to continue doing what we’re doing. In that first post, we stated our intent to:

counter a trend many of us have noticed in the last few years: A tendency to downplay the contributions of spiritual feminist scholars, including Goddess authors. We are also here to provide information about other concerns of people involved in modern feminist Goddess religions and spiritual paths, including the various permutations now snaking through some Jewish and Christian circles.
....to try to give you the real story on writings and other statements that are critical of Goddess claims, concepts, practices, particularly when it's done in a way that distorts them.

We’ve begun to do the this, and a good example of the latter is our review of an otherwise excellent book by William Dever.

That first post continues:

We also plan to point out writing that takes concepts from Goddess or feminist theological writings but fails to credit them as such....We will be particularly critical of writing that ignores the Goddess or feminist sources of ideas it espouses while at the same time putting down modern Goddess religion or spiritual feminism.

An example of this is our review of a Tikkun article by Shaul Magid.

We continued:

We also plan to help readers find articles and information...and give you information about Goddess groups in various geographical locations. We are particularly interested in groups that have incorporated as religious non-profits and/or who have a building dedicated to Goddess use.

Our posts on Goddess Temples, our mini-reviews of Goddess e-zines, our monthly Buzz Coils pointing you to posts of interest on other blogs, and our monthly Events Coils, giving links to event info world-wide are significant strides on this path.

OK. Enough of us patting ourselves on the back. Pass the Birthday Cake, please.

Warrior Goddesses?

I’m concerned about the growing interest in and glorification of "warrior goddesses." I worry that if we continue down this road we’ll end up with the patriarchal God-in-a-skirt. Turning towards Goddess is more than a change of gender in deity – it is a change in understanding of the sacred that is related to a change in social structure. Yet here are just a few examples of what’s out there advocating for the "warrior goddess":
– "The Goddess Speaks...Feeling Overwhelmed? Engage Your Inner Warrior Goddess," a Feb. 2005 column by Christine Thomas on the ezine Weed Wanderings
– "Goddess Anat: Warrior Virgin of the Ancient Levant," an article by scholar Johanna H. Stuckey in the ezine, Matrifocus, Samhain 2003.
– a book about fighting breast cancer called, Waking the Warrior Goddess
– "Warrior Goddess" workouts and bellydances
– a Jan. 29, 2007 post on the writing blog, "Affairs of the Pen," called "Warrior Goddess," about how She inspires the author.

I want to make clear I’m not criticizing these publications or writers. In fact, that several of them are fine publications and writers is part of what makes this so disconcerting. I’m seeing a trend here and asking, what’s going on?!

A few weeks ago, I left a comment on a post on Radical GoddessThealogy, in which Athana wrote: "Big Daddy War God aka ’The-Lord-Is-a-Warrior’* isn’t cutting it. We need Mother Goddess to sweep back and calm us down." In my comment, I expressed my concern that

"affection for ‘warrior goddesses....calling some goddesses "warrior" goddesses may be related to the political reglorification (in the US) of war, soldiers, etc.

Athana replied (excerpted):

...war goddesses....sprang up when the War Gods did. Formerly peaceful goddesses were turned into backers of war. Examples: Athena, Astarte, Andraste among the Celts, Neith and Sekhmet in Egypt, Bellona and Minerva in Rome, Inanna in Sumer, Freyja among the Norse -- all were invented or transformed by the new War God peoples who swept over the world around 3000 BC....

Athana’s right. Here is more on what happened with specific Goddesses often referred to as "warrior goddesses":
Athena (Minoan/Greek)
An excerpt from Patricia Monaghan’s book, Goddesses & Heroines tells how the identity of Athena was changed from its original, in which she was a Minoan or Mycedaen household goddess symbolizing "family bond" and connected to "the mild serpent." The Greeks adopted her and adapted her mythology and identity to make her, among other things, a war goddess. For the excerpt from Monaghan’s book, go here.
Brigid Brigit, Brighid (Celtic)
You can find the language claiming She is a warrior goddess on this site. (it’s repeated almost word for word on a number of other sites, so it must be true, right?). Ah, but here is a more accurate account of Brigit as protector rather than warrior.
Durga (Hindu/Indian)
Well known today as a "warrior goddess," she also was transformed from her original persona. Originally she was a mountain Goddess associated with the Himalyas and or/the Vindhyas. By the 4th Century BCE she was shown killing an buffalo and then she becomes a warrior goddess The Goddess Kali is a mythological offshoot of Durga’s anger. But according to Patricia Monaghan in Goddesses & Heroines, even in war, Durga is not an aggressor, but rather a defender against evil.
Macha (Celtic)
This quote is from "Celtic Woman: Myth and Symbol" . No author is given but it appears to be a university student group project completed in 1998:

....The story of Macha is an instructive example of the "fall" of the Celtic goddess and in some sense the fall of the Celtic woman....The king...in this story, violated the promises he made [to Macha and to women] and instead of being overthrown, is permitted to continue his reign with no apparent resistance from his constituents. This portrayal of Macha is actually the last of three major cycles. In the first she is a brilliant, strong mother-goddess. In the second she is a helpless (but wise) wife, and the third she is relegated to an existence of shame and forced to abandon her life-giving gifts, adapting to the new warrior ethos.... the war-goddess appears to develop as a result of the change in Celtic society to one of violence....
Macha evolves into a warrior-goddess...simultaneously the status of women decline in societies...where emphasis is placed on death and bloodlust rather than on life and respect for death....Goddesses were becoming as violent as the society that "created" them. They were raped, murdered and often died in child birth....

As far as I know the first publication showing how Goddesses were "transformed" to fit in with patriarchal paradigms, including being war-like, is the 1987 Crossing Press pamphlet Matriarchal Mythology in Former Times and Today by Heide Gottner-Abendroth (published first in the Journal Trivia, #7, 1985.) If you can somehow get a hold of this, look especially at Table 2: Transformations of Matriarchal Mythology. I believe Gottner-Abendroth is working on a multi-volume work (some volumes now available in German) so maybe there will be more from her on this. (If anyone knows more about this, please leave a comment.) A well-known work on the early characteristics of goddesses (and gods) is Marija Gimbutas’ The Language of the Goddess. And Riane Eisler’s The Chalice and the Blade details the change of both society and deities from being cooperative, peaceful, and matrifocal to being war-like, authoritarian, and woman-oppressive.

But, I can just hear some of you saying or thinking, goddesses are not only nurturing fertility figures, goddesses are strong. Their strength is sometimes shown in their ability to fight and protect. Yes, I agree. What I have a problem with is using the term "war" or "warrior" to describe these traits and abilities.

Commenting on an article in August 2002 article in The Beltane Papers, "Walking the Warrior’s Path," in which Dr. Galina Krasskova refers to meanings in other languages to justify using "warrior goddess" in English, Suzette Haden Elgin, Ph. D. (linquistics) in Religious Language Newsletter writes:

"Warrior" is not just a metaphor that has grown dim with centuries of use; it's not like "breakfast." We don't say "break" and then "fast," we say "BREHKfust"; the word "fast" meaning to refrain from eating is uncommon in ordinary English; there's another word "fast" meaning "quick," and so on. "Warrior" is very different -- it's just plain "war," said as we always say "war," plus the "do-er/maker" morpheme, and there's no way to remove that semantic content from the word. Which means that using it activates the whole English semantic domain of battlefield combat telling you that your responsibility is to get out there and WIN, never mind what you have to do to accomplish the victory, as long as the war is just. The Christian soldier marching as to war has that semantic content to deal with, no matter how noble the "path of the warrior" may be in non-English-speaking cultures and languages. For speakers of English to choose The Warrior as their spiritual metaphor is, in my opinion, a serious error.

I agree with Elgin. Yes, we want to envision goddess(es) as full personalities, not limited to being ‘fertility symbols’. Yes, Goddesses are strong and assertive. They are definitely protectors, defenders, and guardians. But they are not belligerent and bellicose. They aren’t initial aggressors; they don’t authorize first strikes. My concern is that we are jumping on the war bandwagon, even though many of us are also involved in peace groups. I’d like us to be sensitive to the difference between being war-like (or liking war) and being able to defend ourselves and those close to us by being strong. Also, I think we need to be picky about which version of which Goddess in which era we venerate and emulate. (I’m suspicious of any imagery that originated after 3000 BCE–this definitely includes the classic Greek and Roman pantheons). Both the images and the words we use have power. Or as I think has been said elsewhere, you become what you love.

So let's call them what they are: goddesses of strength, protector goddesses, guardian goddesses, and even in some cases, healing goddesses. But you won't hear (or see) me invoking a Goddess because she's a "warrior." That word comes with too much negative baggage, is often based on patriarchal re-imaging, and really, it's just not what we mean.

TAGS:life warrior goddess spiritual feminism Pagan Goddess women and religion

'The Gods'

[transcript of an unreal conversation, early 21st Century]

Abrahamic Believer: I believe in the One True God who rules Heaven and Earth.

Pagan Individual: I reject monotheism and a transcendent God who exists outside creation, a God you call "He."

AB: Some places may still use the supposedly generic "He" for God but the place where I worship stopped calling God "He" 20 years ago, when some women said they felt excluded when God was called only "He" and "Lord" and other similar male words. We degendered our language, and a church where a friend of mine goes had another solution: they alternate male and female language.

PI: Well, we Pagans have a God and a Goddess, Gods and Goddesses, male and female. Your monotheism relies on transcendence, but the gods we Pagans have are immanent. The Gods are within creation not somewhere outside or above it.

AB: the gods?

PI: Yes, the gods, plural. You got a problem with that?

AB: You mean just the male gods are immanent?

PI: Of course not, all the gods are immanent.

AB: So you’re using "the gods" to mean both gods and goddesses?

PI: Yes, everyone knows "the gods" means both gods and goddesses. That’s how it’s always been said.

AB: So you’re using "the gods" as a generic, just like we used "he" as a generic pronoun for God, as it had always been used.

PI: It’s not the same because we have both gods and goddesses, and priests and priestesses.

AB: It sure seems the same to me! People used to say "God" had no gender even though we called him "he." We have both male and female ministers. So explain how "the gods" doesn’t exclude the female divine just like "God...He" does.

PI: It’s just an expression! What are you, the Word Police?

Medusa [in a voice that sounds like it’s coming through a bullhorn]: I understand that your ear has become used to the sound of certain words, and that it seems like "the gods" rolls off the tongue easily and it takes up less space when you’re writing to leave off "the goddesses." But when I’m left out I become angry. You wouldn’t want to anger Medusa, would you? To include me, my sister Goddesses, and women, when speaking of us, please use "gods and goddesses" (alternating that term with "goddesses and gods"), or if you want something short, use "deities" or "divinities." If you’re writing, use these or use "God/desses."

Abrahamic Believer: What or Who was that?

Pagan Individual: I didn’t hear anything....

TAGS:life the gods spiritual feminism Pagan Goddess women and religion

Goddessian

A few readers have asked me to write about the term, Goddessian (pron. God dess' i an), which I’ve been using in posts here.

The first use of the term I’m aware of is in August 1999 during a discussion on WMSPRT-L, a list which no longer exists but at that time was housed on the buffalo.edu server. Some of us were trying to put a name to the distinction between Paganism (or Neopaganism) and "feminist Goddess people." I suggested several possibilities, including calling ourselves "Goddessians," and that’s the term list members liked best. In 2002, I mentioned the term in a column titled, "Naming Ourselves" in The Beltane Papers. At that time I suggested that some of us might want to call ourselves Goddessians because:

To not name ourselves is to risk becoming invisible–both to ourselves and to others. To not have a name is to be in peril of not existing, disappearing, becoming subsumed into other groups. This has already started to happen. Women who came to the Goddess through feminist spirituality, for lack of any visible alternative, may join Wiccan or Pagan groups that give short shrift to women and women’s issues, despite having goddesses in their pantheons. Those who don’t find a home in Witchcraft or other Pagan groups may simply lose interest in Goddess spirituality because they have no cohesive group to identify with.

The need to distinguish ourselves with a name separate from, or in addition to Pagan, Witch or Wiccan not only continues but has become more important, as misogynist attitudes in some Pagan groups seem to be persisting, even intensifying (see, for example, comments to my Jan. 1 post "Looking Back, Looking Forward")

"Goddessian" is being used increasingly; Google came up with about 60 links for the word when I searched today. Among them, a Yahoogroup called "Sage of the Grove’s Goddessian Pathway" . And people with profiles or posting on Witchvox identify as "Goddessian." In another link, Sage Starwalker writes :

I tend to think of myself as Goddessian, and I hope that this site is on its way to becoming a Goddessian Resource (Goddessian as it both relates to and differs from pagan, neopagan, Wiccan and "Witch.")

And on her blog called Panthea, Grian DeBandia in a April 10, 2006 post, "Time for a Change," uses the term "Goddessian," when touching on some of the other issues I’ve been blogging about lately. Grian writes:

My daughter asked me the other day why she has to be different. She thinks it's "cool" to be Christian because everyone in her class is. The other kids teach her Bible songs and tell her about going to church. Where are the opportunities for Goddessian people to offer those things to their children? I want a religion with top-notch, University accedited training facilities and the ability for paid clergy who can run the organization of our temples....
The time has come for change. The first thing we need to do is break free of some of the more modern labels we've taken on, most of which are slurs that were used against our ancestors millenia ago.
Quoted From Another Source:
"The word Pagan was given to the non christians by christians as an insult. It means country dweller which at the time equated to dirty, poor, uneducated idiot, now there's a name worth keeping! ... We are "pagans" because CHRISTIANS say we are!"

Although some people, like Grian and "Another Source," see problems with the term "Pagan," others still identify as Pagans but use the term "Goddessian" to specify what type of Pagan they are. The same may be true of some Witches and Wiccans.

And while the term Goddessian may denote a subset of Pagans, it can also be a term that is more inclusive than Paganism. For example, there are groups such as Goddess Christians, Goddess Jews , who don’t feel the term, "Pagan" describes them, but may be able to identify with the word, "Goddessian."

So to sum up the present situation: Goddessian is a term used by people who revere Goddess(es) and strive for full participation of women in religion. For some Goddessians, this is their sole spiritual identity. Others who identify as Goddessian also identify as Pagans, Wiccans, and Witches. They use the additional identity, "Goddessian," to show that their emphasis is on female deity and securing equality for women in religion.

updated 11/3/10 with pronunciation

TAGS:life news spiritual feminism feminisms Goddess women and religion Goddessian Pagan feminist spirituality Goddess temples

Looking Back, Looking Forward

My first post of the calendar new year is dedicated to the Goddess Anna Perenna, who is sometimes seen as having two faces: Postverta, looking to the past, and Prosrsa, looking to the future.

Postverta: A Look Back
In the spirit of Postverta, a look back at the development of Goddess spirituality and spiritual feminisms can help us better understand where we are today. Feminist spirituality grew out of the consciousness-raising activities of the 1960s and 1970s, and evaluated the status of women in religion in ways similar to the critiquing of women’s social and political situation. Some women reacted to the information about the oppressive nature of mainstream religions by attempting to reform those religions. Others left mainstream religions and sought to establish (or re-establish) religious/spiritual paths that included Goddess figures or concepts, including seeing nature as good rather than as a negative force to be controlled. These modern Goddess pioneers understood that respecting nature, valuing women, and revering goddesses were intertwined, and they felt that the downgrading and erasing of goddesses was at the root of women’s social and political oppression.

The contemporary Goddess movement began with explorations by individual women or small informal groups sharing information and intuitions about ancient religions. Small groups became larger, a bit more structured, but usually remained all-women. As the movement grew, many women either opened their groups to men or joined existing mixed-gender Pagan groups. The migration of Goddess-honoring feminists into the Pagan community played an important role in the growth of that community in the last two decades of the 20th century. Women were to drawn to Paganism because the groups honored goddesses along with gods and also because nature is held sacred in many forms of Paganism. Women assumed that if a group honored the divine as female, it would also treat human females equitably. This assumption may have been naive. Women report that in many Pagan and Wiccan groups both online and "in real life," the input and opinions of women are resented or downright ignored, and sometimes, reflecting the larger society, "feminist" has become a bad word. Why, how, has this happened? One important reason is that the basic underpinnings of the old power-over, male-dominance paradigm haven’t been thoroughly rooted out. Rather, the old paradigm has been transferred from mainstream religions to some (many?) Pagan groups, which give short shrift to the empowered goddesses in matrifocal cultures of more than 3,000 years ago, and have instead adopted pantheons and viewpoints from later eras, which, while they include goddesses, envision them from a patriarchal rather than egalitarian perspective. This trend of downplaying women’s contributions and the importance of female deities is bolstered today, particularly in the U.S., by the backsliding socio-religio-political framework of the larger culture which, at least partly in defensive reaction to the slight progress made by women, is increasingly antagonistic to feminism and to equity for women.

This backlash occurs in spite of (because of?) another response to the writings, teachings and actions of spiritual feminists during the last two decades of the 20th Century: Many Jewish and Christian denominations became more open to women’s full participation in religion, including ordination, and grew sensitive to how exclusively-male god language serves to exclude women. Some of these groups responded by degenderizing language used to describe and address the divine. Some denominations added female "god language" or imagery to their texts and became more open to visioning the divine as female, or as they sometimes prefer to call it "feminine." (There’s a difference, but that’s a topic for another blog post.) A more recent development is Christian and Jewish groups who allow embodiment of the Divine as Female. People in these groups sometimes identify as Goddess Christians or Goddess Jews . (There are also a significant number of people people identifying themselves as "Jewitches," but imo the focus of many of these individuals and groups seems to be polytheist and magickal, but not particularly feminist.)

Let’s say you left a (non-fundamentalist) mainstream religion for Paganism as a result of your feminist views 20 or 30 years ago. An interesting experiment might be to revisit whatever group you left and see if there’s a difference in the language and the participation of women. Then compare that to how women are treated in your Pagan group. Where would you say women are treated more equitably today? Is there as great a difference in gendered "god language" between the Pagan group and the mainstream denomination as when you left it? What about male and female representations of the divine?

Prosrsa: A Glimpse of the Future
As we look towards the future with the vision of Prosrsa, the forward-looking face of Anna Perenna, I’m going to continue asking questions, borrowing from my column of a few years ago, "Goddess Spirituality at the Crossroads," in The Beltane Papers. These questions are about groups we may be involved in now:

- Do women participate equally in discussions in our mixed gender groups (including covens), or do they defer to, or are they often interrupted by men?
- Are leadership roles, other than high priest/ess, filled as often by women as by men in mixed gender groups?
- Are deities referred to as "the gods" when we actually mean both goddesses and gods?
- Are the group's teaching materials free of sexist assumptions (for example, characteristics assigned to gods and goddesses)?
- Do the books and techniques used for metaphysics (such as tarot, astrology, kabbalah, meditation, magick) depend on outdated patriarchal frameworks?

In addition to assessing whether groups are meeting our goals and needs, imo there is another important question to ask ourselves at this New Year: Do we Goddessians want to stay on the outskirts of spiritual paths or do we want to evolve into a fully-accepted religion? Many of us dislike "organized religion," and this feeling may be increased at present because we see in stark specifics, the harm that foisting religion onto political decisions and actions can do. Yet the outcome of continuing to remain on the margins – of both mainstream religions and Paganism – could mean that groups for which Goddess(es) are primary, groups that emphasize equality for women, will eventually disappear and fade into the persisting patriarchal culture. A year ago or two ago I thought this was likely to happen. But more recently I’ve been encouraged by the emergence of Goddessian and other spiritual feminist bloggers. And I’ve become more hopeful that there will be at least some sort of structure, (dare I say organization?) that will sustain us. To me, the most encouraging sign of this is the establishment of several Goddess temples, which I found out about in the last year while developing this blog. Medusa Coils has been fortunate to have guest blogs by people involved with a number of these temples – they’re listed over there on the right under "Archived Favorites," and some of the activities of these temples are listed in our "Events Coil" every month. I hope we’ll have more posts on physical spaces devoted to Goddess celebration in the future. At present I’m aware of contemporary Goddess temples in the western and midwestern USA, in England, the Netherlands, and in Australia. And I say wow!!! What these groups are doing is really impressive!!!! I’m optimistic that existing temples will continue to flourish, and that more Goddess temples will join them.

At the turn of the millennium, Abby Willowroot encouraged people to create Goddess statues and art in what she called "Goddess 2000 Project", whose aim was "A Goddess on Every Block!" Now that we are well into this millennium, I’d like to state another goal – a Goddess temple in every town!

I believe Goddess temples will bring us increased visibility and stability, lessen the perception of us as an unimportant or fringe group (or groups), and enable people to see contemporary Goddess religion(s) as a legitimate spiritual path. This, in turn, will help us reach other goals, such as having our research, scholarship, and writings published more easily, having our findings accepted in academic circles, and having Goddessian representatives included in "interfaith" programs and gatherings.

Recently, on her blog, M. Macha Nightmare (author with Starhawk et al. of The Pagan Book of Living and Dying) described an interfaith forum at Napa College in California. Macha was the speaker on "Contemporary Pagan, " in a program that also included speakers on Judaism, Christianity, Islam and other mainstream religions, and a speaker(Leilani of the Daughters of the Goddess) on what the program described as "Goddesses Based Wicca." In a footnote to her blogpost, Macha wrote, "This is how it was listed in the program, but the speaker actually said she was talking about goddess spirituality, which seemed more accurate to me." Napa College should be complimented on making a distinction, too infrequently made, between Paganism and Wicca and Goddess[es]-based Wicca, and I cheer Leilani’s and Macha’s further distinction between "Goddesses Based Wicca" and "Goddess spirituality." I consider the latter a wider category, a bigger tent. A tent that might even include Goddess Christians and Goddess Jews.

So at this dawning of a new calendar year, let us pour a libation to Anna Perenna, as well as to She who has many faces, many embodiments, many names. And let us toast to a year of continuing Goddessian progress.

TAGS:life news spiritual feminism feminisms Goddess women and religion New Year 2007 Goddessian Pagan feminist spirituality interfaith Goddess temples