How Women Get Erased from History

UPDATE: (5/12 10:13 p.m. but unable to post until 5/13 1:59 p.m. because Blogger was down to resolve some issues) Looks like someone took Hecate's suggestion (see her comment below) or maybe it's that great minds think alike... In any event, freewilliamsburg.com has published the pic in question with only the two women, because, according to Free Williamsburg, having the men in the photo was "too "scintillating to handle." WTG Free Williamsburg! (And tip of the hat to Rachel Maddow, who closed with this item on her MSNBC's program last night [i.e., Thursday night].

An ultraorthodox Hasidic Yiddish newspaper, Der Tzitung, has "photoshopped" out Hillary Clinton and Audrey Thomason from the well-known White House photo of people watching the raid on the Bin Laden compound. Clinton is U.S Secretary of State; Thomason is Director for Counter-Terrorism. Der Tzitung is located in the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn, NY. The newspaper says it was following its policy of not showing women in photos with men because it can be sexually suggestive. For more info with pics, see The New York Magazine, and The Jewish Week, which is critical of Der Tzitung. This is of course just the most recent instance in a long tradition of various religions finding ways to erase women from history.

Blessing Barack?

Those of us who supported Barack Obama’s candidacy are trying to come to grips with his selection of Rick Warren to give the invocation at the Inauguration. (I’m not even going to get into why, with Constitutional separation of church and state that does not allow even silent prayer in public schools, we permit out-loud prayers to deities many of us don’t worship at Presidential inaugurations, meetings of Congress,etc. But I think that’s something that also warrants attention.)

Obama supporters have put forth many opinions about the Warren fiasco. Some of them decry Warren’s selection. Others, acting as "apologists" for the selection, say that Obama simply likes Warren and it has nothing to do with religion or politics. Still others maintain this is part of Obama trying to look like a centrist so he can get enough support to govern as a progressive (see dailykos.com and streetprophets.com for these and other arguments).

At this point I think the best that can be said is the selection of Warren was a gigantic faux pas. (Why do I start thinking in French when writing this post? Faux pas, loosely translated means klutzy mistake--mixing in a little Yiddish is grounding, lol.).

Warren’s opposition to anything resembling gay rights has gotten the most attention from those who oppose his selection. For some reason mainstream media and blogs don't give as much attention to Warren's opposition to equality within het marriage (he preaches that the husband is head of the family–oh, and btw, men [by which he means straight men] are head of the church), and to his opposition to legal abortion.

UPDATE 1, 12/21: Athana of Radical Goddess Theology left a comment below about Warren's apparent ties to Christian Dominionism. She's posted about it on her blog and I think this info is important enough to include here the link to her post , and to the Newsvine post, which is her source.

Briefly, Obama’s excuse for choosing Warren for the honor of giving the invocation is that this is part of "change" and is his way of being inclusive.

This is certainly is not what I expected when I voted for "change." Rather, to me it seems to be a political attempt to win over (or reward) the Christian right. Didn’t we have enough of that the last 8 years? "Reaching out" and/or trying to appear a centrist to further a progressive agenda (homophobia, anti-abortion, and subordination of women is centrist????) may have their place, but that place is not at the inauguration of a President and Vice President whose party platform is the opposite of Warren's views. If you want to reach out, a more appropriate way of doing so is to have meetings–interfaith meetings wouldn’t be a bad idea–to discuss different points of view. If you personally like the fellow, set up private sessions, have him pray over you to your soul’s content. But it’s NOT appropriate to give one of the most prominent spots on the program to a minister whose views are repugnant to most of those who supported your candidacy.

The invitation has been issued and cannot be taken back, we are told. So can nothing then be done to rectify this mistake?

I’m not sure–I don’t know what the protocol is for these things and I want to say first and most emphatically that I applaud the selection of Rev. Joseph Lowery to give the benediction (and would have also applauded if he had been selected for the invocation). But since the invocation invitation to Warren apparently cannot be taken back, what if you could add another blesser–perhaps have two people share the responsibility of giving the invocation?

Before we attempt an answer, let’s first look at what we have now in terms of "inclusiveness": Giving the blessings in this inauguration are two men, both Christian–in fact, both Protestant Christians. That’s inclusive?

If we could add a third blesser and we really want to be inclusive, we should look for a woman who is clergy in a non-Christian religion. If she's a lesbian, so much the better. Selecting a lesbian to be the other invocation-giver would send a clear message that Warren’s presence is truly meant to be inclusive and not an endorsement of his views. If it’s not possible to get a non-Christian woman clergy at this late date, then you should try for a woman clergy in a religion that, while it may include some Christianity, also honors other paths (for example, Unitarian-Universalism, Ethical Culture, Unity), or if that’s not possible, at least a Christian clergy who is a woman. Plenty of these pop into mind: ordained Protestant ministers, Episcopal priests, even Roman Catholic women priests (yes, they exist).

Does anyone think this has a chance of being done?

No, I don’t think so either. Actually, it is what should have been done in the first place. After selecting Lowery for the benediction, it should have been clear that to achieve inclusiveness, at the very least the invocation should be given by woman clergy–and to really achieve balance it would be preferable that she be non-Christian.

As it stands now the Warren faux pas dims what was a bright star, and the promise of "change" seems to be shifting to "plus ça change, c'est plus la même chose."

Yet at this season of hope and growing light, I will still hope for enlightenment.

UPDATE 2, 12/21: Until we can have enlightenment, perhaps something lighter will do? See possible snark, "Leaked Rick Warren Invocation" on Huffington Post.

UPDATE: 12/23: John Aravosis of America Blog reported yesterday that Warren's Saddleback Church's website has removed its statement that "someone unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be welcome at Saddleback." Aravosis' story shows the Saddleback site before and after the edit.
Will this flickering candle stay lit after the inauguration?

TAGS:news Barack Obama Inauguration politics and religion Rick Warren women and religion

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

Anahita-L Moderator Shuts Down Gimbutas Discussion

The moderator of Anahita-L , a mailing list dedicated to discussing "women and gender in the Ancient Mediterrean world" today shut down (or should I say shut up?) a discussion of the work of the late archeologist Marija Gimbutas, research about the ancient city of Catal Huyuk (in what is now Turkey), and related scholarship about religion and other aspects of culture and women's roles in the ancient Mediterrean world.

The lively but non-flaming thread took place over the last several days in a group used to more soporific discussions. A day or two preceding the discussion shutdown/up, one of the list members asked snarkily (message 1268) if the list had become a New Age discussion list. (For people who don't know the difference between Goddess scholarship and New Age thought, please see "The Goddess vs. the New Age..." by Jacqui Woodward-Smith in the first issue of Goddess-Pages).

In the next post, the moderator responded with the list description:

ANAHITA-L is a scholarly list for the discussion of women and gender in the ancient Mediterranean world. Discussion topics include: women's work, legal status, social roles -- both public and private, intellectual life, religious activities, and men's views on women. The discussions should be based upon historical, archaeological, linguistic, literary and other evidence from the ancient world and the various interpretations of this evidence. There are many interpretations of the source material and we encourage a variety of approaches, including controversial authors such as Stone and Gimbutas. These latter authors may be discussed critically but they are not to be taken as the 'final word' on any topic. Some familiarity with original source material is expected.

But he ended this post ended ominously, writing:"we're watching..."

Four days later, at a point at which it seemed that through admirable persistence, several Goddess scholars seemed to be making some headway with factual evidence, the moderator ended the discussion with a post (1288) saying, in part:

It has become apparent that the discussion is no longer about women in the ancient world but rather is about bashing 'academe' (for reasons which seem more 'personal' than 'academic') and not really discussing anything....
As such, and keeping in mind that this is an ACADEMIC list, the current discussion of any approaches which are based on overuse of the suffix -archy shall be considered
closed....Any complaints may be sent directly to me...but I seriously doubt I'll attempt to respond.

Since (at least at this writing) the list posts are publicly available, you can read them and decide for yourself whether they are about "bashing academe" or whether this "reason" is an excuse for shutting up a discussion of a subject (and even use of certain words!) uncomfortable for some group members.
TAGS: life news anthropology Anahita-l Marija Gimbutas Catal Hoyuk womens studies Ancient Near East

Post-Feminist?

If you're one of those people who think we're living in a post-feminist world where the goals of feminism have been met, including equality of women in religion, you might want to take a gander at the hostile misogyny with which attempts by women in the Catholic Church to achieve ordination are (still!) being met by some bloggers. Their attacks are aimed at Roman Catholic Womenpriests , which has been ordaining women for several years (without the Pope's blessing, of course). These blogposts focus specifically on recent liturgies and ordinations near Baltimore and in St. Louis . If the bloggers on Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam and Fish in a Barrel (and possibly others others--feel free to go Google) could limit themselves to theological arguments I wouldn't be writing this (not that it wouldn't be an issue – but at least it would represent some attempt at rationality), but they also take the opportunity to attack the women with personal insults. Fish in a Barrel calls the Womenpriests "old biddies," "Crew Cut-feminists," and "dowdy," and maintains that the ordination in a Reform Jewish "congregational building" threatens Catholic-Jewish relations. Ad Majorem accuses the Womenpriests of "playing dress-up" and describes their event as a "wiccan-like retreat," an insult in Ad Majorem's eyes. (For a more balanced account of the Baltimore meeting see the City Paper . )

As long as this kind of nonsense is going on (and it is going on, not only in religion but elsewhere --just watch or read the nightly or daily news) we are not post-feminist and I, for one, will not mellow out, smile, and bat my lashes.

Instead, with this post I honor the brave Womenpriests:

May you be blessed with courage,
strength, and fulfillment.

TAGS:news Womenpriests spiritual feminism women and religion

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.

REVIEW: Dever Book About Asherah

Did God Have a Wife? Archeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel by William G. Dever, (Eerdmans 2005) hardcover.

This book establishes with strong archeological evidence that the Goddess Asherah was among the deities worshiped by Israelites, Judeans, and other peoples of the Ancient Near East (ANE). It’s a shame that William G. Dever couldn’t accomplish this without being unfriendly to today’s Goddess folk, a good number of whom came to this conclusion a while back. More about that later. First let’s get my objection to the book title out of the way and look at the book’s very positive accomplishments.

I’ve got to tell you, when I saw the title, Did God Have A Wife? my first response was: "You mean ‘Did Goddess have a husband (and who performed the ceremony)?’" In his bibliography, Dever lists among his previously anthologized articles, "Folk Religion in Ancient Israel: Did Yahweh have a Consort?" My guess is that "Did Yahweh have a Consort?" may have also been the book’s original title, but that someone (Dever? the publisher?) wanted a wider readership than this title would likely attract and so dumbed it down. Still, I wish they had compromised and made the current subtitle, Archeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel, the title. To Dever’s credit, the book, though packed with scholarly material, is written in a way that is easy for most non-academics to understand and even contains a few jokes.

Dever has, as he himself says several times in the book, an interesting background for this work. His grew up in a Christian fundamentalist family in the southern and mid-western USA, his father a preacher and "tent evangelist." He attended a church college in East Tennessee, then a "liberal Protestant seminary," and served as a parish minister. Then it was on to Harvard to study Old Testament theology. After finding he had "no talent for that discipline," he got into archeology which eventually led to 40 years of fieldwork in Israel and Jordan. He became what he calls a "nominal Jew," is active in the Reform Jewish community but is non-observant and considers himself a secular humanist. (p. xi) He claims to be "politically-speaking" a feminist, but when it comes to scholarship, he says he doesn’t want to be identified "as either a ‘feminist’ or a ‘masculinist’." (p. xiii). He is professor emeritus of Near Eastern Archeology and Anthropology at the University of Arizona.

The time period Dever examines is 12th Century to early 6th Century BCE (which Dever calls BC – I’m beginning to favor the new time-reckoning term, BP [Before Present], but since the present is always changing this is only good for long estimated eras not specific years. I will use BCE/CE in this review, as is most common among both Jews and Pagans). The book has a number of helpful charts and lists, among them chronological correlations with history and cultures (p. xvi), the differences between a "State religion" and a "folk religion," (p. 5), differences between texts and artifacts (pp.53-54). There are numerous pictures of artifacts and buildings throughout the book.

Dever says that since 1982, he has recognized Asherah as the consort of Yahweh (p. 201), making him one of the first outside of the Goddess community to acknowledge that Asherah was a deity. (The earliest was probably Raphael Patai in his invaluable book, The Hebrew Goddess (1967), to which Dever pays homage [p. 207-8] ). Other scholars, especially biblical theologists, whom Dever repeatedly takes to task, clung – many still cling – to the idea that the terms "asherah" and "asherim’ in the Bible refer only to poles. Dever defines the religion of most ancient Israelites and Judeans as "folk religion." He says archeology supports it being polytheistic, including both female and male deities, and although women were very active in the religion, it was a religion of both women and men. (p. 251).

Once an advocate of biblical theology, Dever now lists 11 reasons why it is "useless in the attempt to reconstruct a reliable portrait of ancient Israelite religion." The first two reasons? "Clerically dominated" and "androcentric." (p. 38) Dever also parts ways with postmodernists, calling their view that biblical texts don’t refer to any reality, "piffle." (p. 9) About the Hebrew scriptures themselves, Dever says:
– "All biblical texts in their present written form were produced relatively late in Israel’s history," that is, no earlier than the 8th Century BCE.
– The writers of the Bible were highly selective in the material they allowed in, and were "mostly elites, literati" and male, making up less than 1 percent of the population.
– "...all the biblical literature...constitutes what is essentially ‘propaganda....the Bible is ‘revisionist history’ on a grand scale."
–The Bible doesn’t portray the Israelite religion as it really was, but rather as what the authors wanted it to be, and suppressed and condemned "folk religion"–that is the religion of at least 99% of the people.
(pp. 69-73, 251)

Asherah: The Archeological Evidence
Dever presents the evidence for polytheism in general and worship of the Goddess Asherah in particular until the mid 6th Century BCE (p.299). He concludes that

...triumphant monotheism tends to foster cultural imperialism. Monotheism defined exclusively by a male clergy in term of their male deity almost inevitably results in a hierarchical and patriarchal system. (p.315)

The book is packed with explanations of folk religion and State (or book) religion, descriptions of ANE culture and family life, "Old Testament" theology and various approaches to studying these.

From archeological and anthropological evidence, Dever concludes that the "high places," "standing stones" and "poles," against which biblical prophets railed are all connected to worship of Asherah and other deities, such as the gods El, Ba’al, and Yahweh, and the goddesses Astarte and Anat. He also takes a look at stone and terra cotta offering tables and basins, incense burners, family shrines, and temples (at Jerusalem and elsewhere), all of which support polytheistic practices.

Here are a few items of particular interest:
– a Hebrew inscription found in an 8th Century BCE bench tomb near Hebron that Dever excavated and reported on in 1969 ("which was ignored by scholars for a decade"). Roughly translated, the inscription reads: "Blessed is Uriyahu by Yahweh. From his enemies he has been saved by his a/Asherah."(p. 132) Dever and other archeologists subsequently found Asherah and Yahweh paired on a number of other inscriptions (pp. 162-163).
– Male figurines were rare in ancient Israel in 10th-6th centuries BCE. (p.147)
– A mold for making female figurines was found in a 10th century BCE in a "Cultic Structure" which appears connected to "Asherah, the Lion Lady" (p 151).
– At least three types of figures representing Asherah:
(1) 10th-9th century BCE: Nude figures with long hair, usually similar to "the bouffant wig worn by the Egyptian goddess Hathor, whom the texts clearly equate with the Levantine Asherah as ‘Qudshu,the Holy One’." She is sometimes shown on or with a lion. (p. 176-178)
(2) 10th-9th century BCE: Figures, either nude or wearing skirts, holding either a drum or a cake.
(3) Late 8th-7th century BCE: Judean "pillar-based" figures with prominent breasts, whose lower body resembles a tree trunk. Hundreds to thousands of these have been found.(pp. 179-180) [To get to link, click on "cancel" in response to query about foreign language. The Israel Museum and others often label an artifact of Asherah, Astarte. ]
– In the mid 1980s CE, Ruth Hestrin, a curator at the Israel museum, Jerusalem, pointed out, after examining a ceremonial vase excavated in Lachish, that in Israelite iconography both the tree and the downward-pointing triangle are not just symbols of, but are literally interchangable with, the Goddess Asherah. Many Israelite artifacts show either a tree or a downward-pointing triangle with two lions (or other animals) on either side. These were understood by the Israelites as being the Goddess Asherah ("the Lion Lady") accompanied by her animals. (Egyptian iconography shows a human being nursed by a tree with a human breast; another drawing shows a human-bodied goddess and tree as one.) (pp. 225-229).

Goofs
When Dever ventures into areas that he’s not as familiar with as archeology, he’s prone to misstatements. For example, in his discussion of laws for kosher foods promulgated in Leviticus, he can’t understand what makes one animal "unclean," while another is "acceptable." He asks:

Why do the "holiness laws" in Leviticus specify that animals that "chew the cud or part the hoof" (11:4) are unclean?....Why are pigs non-kosher?...(p.267)

Well, I got out my handy-dandy KJV, and extended my reading to Lev.11:3-7, which reads:

Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is cloven-footed, and cheweth the cud among beasts, that shall ye eat. Nevertheless, these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but not the hoof; he is unclean unto you....And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean unto you.

So Leviticus doesn’t say that animals that "chew the cud or part the hoof" are unclean. It says "that shall you eat" – they’re clean, baby, eat up. The animals that are unclean are those that don’t both have cloven hoofs and chew cuds. For example, the camel chews a cud but doesn’t have a divided hoof. Ain’t kosher. And the delicious little piggy has a cloven hoof but doesn’t chew a cud, so the Bible says, feh!!!!

In his brief broaching of Kabbalah (p. 302), which is part of Dever’s discussion of the Shekhinah as a post-biblical Jewish female or feminine divine personification, Dever says that kabbalistic literature and thinking is "too divergent...and too fluid to permit a summary here." I agree. Nevertheless, Dever goes on to write a few sentences in which he talks about "the feminine figure" and "the male figure" in Kabbalah. This is misleading as there are several female/feminine and male/masculine "figures" in Kabbalah even as far back as the book called the Zohar (1280-1286 CE), which is Dever’s reference point. Dever writes that the "male figure" is "obviously God,...called the Father; she [the "feminine figure"] is "Mother, Supernal Mother, Matronit, the Shekinah (even Bride in some texts)." I’m willing to bet that it’s not obvious to most kabbalists that any single "figure" is "God." In kabbalah-speak, what Dever calls "figures" are usually called emanations or sefirot (Heb.) The most common understanding is that the main kabbalistic symbol or glyph, the Tree of Life, in its entirety represents the Divine. The "Father" sometimes called the "Supernal Father" is the emanation called Hokmah, the 2nd emanation from the top of the Tree of Life (there are 10, sometimes 11 if you count one invisible emanation. They are probably best understood here as aspects of the Divine.) The way Dever describes the "feminine figure" is also misleading because he makes it sound as though "Mother, Supernal Mother, Matronit, and the Shekinah" are all the same in Kabbalah. They’re not. Shekinah is considered synonymous with Malkut, the bottom emanation on the Tree, also sometimes called Matronit. But "Mother" and "Supernal Mother" are used to refer to Binah, the third emanation from the top. (See, for example, Gershom Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, p. 219) Dever also says,"the pair are lovers." But, you see, we have two pairs of lovers. In the Zohar, during creation, the Supernal Father (Hokmah) impregnates the Supernal Mother, Binah, who gives birth to the emanation, Tiferet. One of Tiferet’s titles is "The Holy King." It is Tiferet/Holy King who couples with Malkut/Shekinah as the Sabbath Queen or Bride. (See, for example, Daniel C. Matt, The Essential Kabbalah. And if you’re interested in a Goddess take on Kabbalah, check this out.) In other words, Kabbalah portrays a type of hieros gamos (sacred marriage), yet Dever insists that there is no cultural or historical evidence for hieros gamos in the ANE (p.216). (Not even in the Song of Songs?) I also find it very odd that Dever doesn’t even mention The Tree glyph in his Kabbalah sentences, given that he has previously pointed out that archeologically Asherah and the tree "are interchangable"( p. 228).

Shirking the ‘Goddess Movement’
With these inaccuracies, and with the vigor with which he attacks other types of scholars that he perceives not being on the same wave length as he is, perhaps his attitude towards and inaccuracies about Goddess scholarship are less surprising. Although he mentions some feminist authors, to him they are a mixed bag, some he at least leaves uncriticized while others, such as Maria Gimbutas, he writes of with disdain. And still others he omits. I was sorry to see he neglected to mention either in the text or in his extensive bibliography important authors whose works are strongly related to his topic including: Savina J. Teubal, author of Sarah the Priestess: the first matriarch of Genesis (1984); Asphodel P. Long, who sources him in her 1993 book, In A Chariot Drawn by Lions; and Jenny Kien, who sources him in her 2000 book, Reinstating the Divine Woman in Judaism. In addition to these slights, he seems either uninformed or sloppy about some of the feminist authors and works he mentions. For example, he misspells Naomi Goldenberg’s name (p. 309 and index), rendering her last name "Goldberg" and then, in a list of "Jewish works" that follows, omits her name before her book’s title, making it seem like Goldenberg’s book, Changing of the Gods (1979) was written by Judith Plaskow. In addition, identifying Changing of the Gods as a "Jewish" work is inaccurate; although it includes some Jewish material, Goldenberg is not writing within the Jewish tradition and the book also discusses Christian and feminist Witchcraft material. (Goldenberg is now professor of religious studies at the University of Ottawa). Dever identifies Mary Daly’s Beyond God the Father (1973) as a "later work" when actually it was one of her earlier works.

In what has become de rigueur for all too many of those in the academy, Dever accuses the "Goddess movement" of assertions and approaches that while they may possibly represent views of a very few people, are certainly not a majority view and cannot be said to be representative of the "movement" as a whole. Typically, this tactic is an attempt to discredit the entire "movement" or community of Goddess scholars by attributing to them outlooks or statements, which they didn’t/don’t make and then refuting them. For example, Dever writes:

Some doctrinaire feminists have gone to extremes, of course, arguing without any evidence that originally there was only one Great Mother who...was dethroned by upstart male deities in later historical times and was thereafter suppressed. This was most forcibly argued by the European archeologist Marija Gimbutas in books like Language of the Goddess (1989). Such pseudo-scholarship has been embraced by various New Age Goddess cults and "Neopagan" religions....Some of these groups want to adopt me when I give public lectures, but the portrait I am painting here should give them no comfort.

He goes on to refer to the "foolishness perpetuated by ‘Goddess movement’" that there was a single ancient ..."monolithic Goddess." (p.306-307)

I’m surprised Dever is joining in on these baseless accusations to discredit Goddess scholarship despite refutations made again, again, again, and again. And what does Gimbutas actually say? In The Language of the Goddess, p. 316, Gimbutas specifically rejects the general term "Mother Goddess" calling it a "misconception." She says there was "a Mother Earth and a Mother of the Dead but the rest of the female images cannot be generalized under the term ‘Mother Goddess’." She goes on to reject Eric Neumann’s Jungian concept of the "Great Mother" because "it does not allow appreciation of her total character." It’s also noteworthy that when Gimbutas uses the term "Great Goddess" she is using it as a term in which to gather a great variety of "goddess images," and that she also speaks of goddesses, plural. And she is referring to the geographic area of her excavations, mostly southeast Europe (she excavated mostly in Bosnia, Macedonia, Greece, Italy, and probably most famously, Catalhoyuk, Anatolia [Turkey]).

Though the term is used in the singular, and although other Goddess scholars may sometimes use the term "the Goddess," or "Great Goddess" the vast majority of those who use these terms are not asserting "a single ancient Goddess," or any sort of monotheism. Rather, the term "the Goddess" or the "Great Goddess" is used as an umbrella term which includes a multitude of goddesses. Based on anthropological and archeological research to date, it does seem reasonable to assume that at some time in each individual culture’s history one or more female deities were worshipped and that these deities sometimes had similar traits. And it’s possible that within these particular cultures, there may have been a Goddess whom those within that culture perceived as being universal, as in the way Dever himself uses the term, "Great Goddess":

In earlier Canaan, the Great Goddess may be a cosmic deity who could be known by several names: Asherah; ‘Anat; Astarte; or Ba’alat or Elath....(p.166)

I don’t take Dever’s use of the term, Great Goddess, to mean that Dever believes that all cultures in the world worshipped only a single goddess at some time in the past. Why should he accuse us, as a group, of asserting that? (Whether some of us today understand deity as a single Goddess is another issue, and certainly understandable considering the monotheistic religions most of us come out of.)

Why does Dever jump on the Goddess feminist-bashing bandwagon? Some other scholars who use this tactic may simply be misogynist, but I don’t think this is true in Dever’s case. I think he is attempting to keep (or gain?) credibility in the academic community. I think his attempt at discrediting the "Goddess movement" and something else he calls "New Age Goddess cults" is to signal to his colleagues that he is not part of that "cult," that his work, though it asserts the same ideas, should be taken more seriously than that of Goddess feminists. I don’t understand how such a learned man can conflate Goddess feminism and New Age thought. The very significant differences between the two have been clearly stated by a number of people including Monica Sjoo in Return of the Dark/Light Mother or New Age Armageddon (1999), Jacqui Woodward-Smith in "The Goddess vs. the New Age," (Goddess Pages, Issue 1, 2006), and my blog comments on Woodward-Smith’s article.

Regarding his concern that "Some of these groups want to adopt me," I didn’t know we were so intimidating or that our attentions were unwanted, but now that I know, in this review I restrained myself from heaping superlatives of praise upon Dever’s archeological findings and his assessment of biblical narrative lest I embarrass him by my approval. If you feel you are one of those Goddess folk Dever may be trying to avoid and you’re in a position to give presentations, to write on the subject, or to add texts to courses or bibliographies, you might want to consider taking similar precautions to protect his feelings.

As we close, I have a final paradox to share with you. Inexplicably in light of his own criticism, near the end of his book Dever himself invokes what sounds like a single ancient "Great Mother"; he writes:

With the full recognition of women...in religion and society, the spirit of the Great Mother will at last be freed. (p.317).

Now what do you make of that?

[Following this post (posted immediately before it chronologically) is a letter to the editor of the Biblical Archeology Review from Caroline Tully about its review of this book.]

TAGS:life Asherah spiritual feminism Ancient Near East Goddess women and religion

Is it April 1 yet?

Medusa told me about this but she said she was laughing too hard to blog it, so I said, okay, I'll do it.

It's about this article on the Discovery Channel site by Jennifer Viegas called Cavemen Preferred Full-Figured Ladies .

When I read the Viegas' article, which at first is about a scholarly article by Romuald Schild, Bodil Bratlund, Else Kolstrup, and Jan Fiedorczuk in the journal Antiquity, I thought the only explanation for its assumptions was that it was an April Fool's joke. But no, it was written on March 24, and it's still not April 1 yet.

Viegas begins the article thusly:

Thin may be in now, but prehistoric men 15,000 years ago prefered full-figured gals, suggest dozens of flint figurines excavated from a Paleolithic hunting site in Poland

She then jumps on over to a book,The Nature of Paleolithic Art by R. Dale Guthrie that

contains images of nearly identical renderings. It seems shapely women also inspired stone carvings and cave art, some of which date to 35,000 years ago.

Viegas quotes Guthrie, a professor emeritus at the University of Alaska, as saying: "female images dominate and are nude, almost every one full-figured above and below." Viegas says that

Guthrie believes most of their creators were young men. He suggests it is not too difficult to theorize what was on their minds in their free time.

As if that weren't enough, here's the kicker, the article says that in addition to the female figures, researchers found hundreds of arctic fox teeth either strung on necklaces or stored in pouches, and that

researchers believe the teeth may have had some kind of ritualistic, spiritual meaning.

Okay, so the teeth had "ritualistic, spiritual meaning" but not the female figures???!!!!! GIMME A BREAK!!!!!!!

I'm willing to give Jennifer Viegas a pass and assume she just needs a little educatin', which we're glad to start her on here. But I wonder if the scholars too are ignorant, or is this another "slight" or intentional ignoring of the immense archeological and anthopological evidence that other scholars have amassed in the last 20-30 years?

So here's a shout-out to Mses and Mssrs Viegas, Schild, Bratlund, Kolstrup,Fiedorczuk, Guthrie, et al.: For starters: Try googling Willendorf !!!!!!!!

There are of course some books we could recommend explaining very clearly and with excellent research, including anthropological and archeological, that these figures are Goddesses, not the Neolithic equivalent of Playboy centerfolds. And if you're interested, but especially over there at the Discovery Channel if you're more into the visual, we suggest you look into the video, "Signs Out of Time."

TAGS:life Willendorf spiritual feminism Discovery Channel Goddess anthropology

Why doesn't 'Interfaith' include Goddess?

Though I’m going to point the finger at one organization in particular in this post, let me be clear that this is not the only organization to claim it’s holding an interfaith, inter-religious, or ecumenical gathering while failing to include Goddess speakers. This situation has occurred before, and, unless we speak up clearly and continually, is likely to keep on happening. Often these situations occur with groups that project the image of being progressive and open-minded by including people from a variety of religions.

When the topic of the meeting or conference doesn’t specifically have something to do with women, it may be easier to let this slight slide by. But in this case, the conference topic is "Women in Religion in the 21st Century." This conference is being held Oct. 17-19 at the Interchurch Center in New York City and as unbelievable as it may seem, as far as I can tell from the list of speakers and list of events this conference doesn’t have any speakers who are known for teaching, writing on, or participating in modern Goddess religions, nor any presentations or discussions specifically on the large role played by Goddess thought in empowering women. Just about every other religious path seems to be included in the program, which has more than 50 speakers representing not only the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) but also Zoroastrian, Sihk, Shinto, Baha’i, Native American and probably other faiths. And this is great! But where, in an extensive 3-day program on women and religion, is the Goddess?

A statement of the "conference focus" says:

This is meant to be a positive voice to deepen understanding and respect, to promote collaboration and connectivity among religious organizations of all kinds and to provide a unique opportunity for networking among all women in all religions.

Why, we must ask, are Goddess feminists apparently excluded, or at the very least ignored, in this deepening of understanding and respect? Where is our opportunity?

I can think of two reasons for omitting Goddessians. One is that you tried to get Goddess speakers and none were available. It’s hard to envision this, though: How hard can it be to find a Goddess feminist to speak in New York City? Plus, in this particular case, at least two speakers on the list, while they are not themselves Goddess feminists, are known to have strong contacts in the Goddess community. So if the program planners didn’t have a clue about who would make a good Goddess representative, they could have asked them. Nevertheless, I suppose trying but not being able to find a speaker is within the realm of possibility.

It’s too late to do anything about this particular event. But I’ll make this offer for the future: If this happens to other groups planning "interfaith" events–especially those focusing on women and religion–if you want a Goddess author or scholar to speak at your conference, you are welcome to use this blog as a contact point. Leave a comment, or click on our profiles to figure out how to get in touch with one of us. Lest you think I’m trying to drum up personal business: neither I nor any of the other current team members are on the lecture circuit; we are not personally available for speaking engagements. But if you can’t find Goddess speakers on your own, we may be able to put you in touch with one.

The second possible reason for the "Conference on Women and Religion in the 21st Century" not including Goddess speakers is the less palatable but I’m afraid more likely one: Your organization doesn’t want any Goddessians on the program. Why? Are they too radical? Too dangerous? How can this be at a time when an increasing number of people are identifying themselves as Goddess Christians, Christo-Pagans, Goddess Jews , and Jewitches . Or could it be that’s what scares you?

Let me put it this way:

There is room at my table for those who want to remain Christian but who wish to honor Sophia, Mary Magdalene, Christa. Why isn’t there room at your table for people who honor Goddess(es) as a separate religious path?

There is room at my table for Jews who want to go no further than placing an orange on the sedar plate and Miriam’s Cup next to Elijah’s, or no further than re-empowering Shekhinah. Why isn’t there room at your table for Goddessians?

There is room at my table for all those in every spiritual path who seek to empower women and include women in the divine. Why isn’t there room at your table for us?

TAGS:life news spiritual feminism Goddess women and religion feminism interfaith conferences feminist progressive

Article Double-Whammies Goddess

In Medusa Coils’ first post, Why Are We Here?, we stated that one of this blog’s goals is to counter the practice of downplaying contributions of spiritual feminists, including Goddess authors. We said we would "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." We promised to post soon about such an article. Here it is:

The article we’re going to point the finger at is certainly not the only example of this shall-we-call-it genre, and likely will not be the last we discuss. It just happens that it’s the one I came across at about the time I decided to launch this blog. It appears in a journal that you might not expect to publish such a point of view, Tikkun, whose name is Hebrew for a concept that humans have an obligation to repair and perfect the world. Its publisher is listed as the nonprofit "Institute for Labor and Mental Health." The magazine is associated with the Jewish Renewal Movement, a liberal (or progressive, take your pick) form of Judaism, and with the Network of Spiritual Progressives, an organization formed to counter the political clout of fundamentalist religions. Tikkun’s editorial board includes at least two well-known female feminist authors; it appears that only 20-25 percent of its 49-member editorial board are women. Because this publication and organization project a reputation of being feminist-friendly, it’s of even more concern (to me, anyway), when an article dismissive of aspects of spiritual feminism appears in it.

Tikkun’s masthead includes a disclaimer that "Articles in Tikkun do not necessarily reflect Tikkun’s position on any issue." So I suppose we shouldn’t hold Tikkun as a whole responsible for the views in the May/June 2006 article, "Jewish Renewal and American Spirituality." Yet its author, Shaul Magid, is one of Tikkun’s contributing editors. So I’m still worried – and not a little angry.

This article engages in the double-whammy of appropriating ideas previously developed, expressed, published by spiritual feminists – particularly Goddess feminists – while at the same time putting down Goddess feminism. A neat trick, eh?

In the first paragraph of the article, Magid explains that:

"As a particularly American form of Judaism, Jewish Renewal can trace its spiritual lineage back to these American Spiritualists as much, or even more than, it can claim Eastern European Hasidic ancestry."

Magid then discusses the influence of Eastern Religious thought, inspiration from the Transcendentalists, and then in the 20th century the Beats, the Beatles (?!) and the "New Agers." Nowhere does he mention the strong interrelationship between first-wave feminism and Spiritualism (see Other Powers by Barbara Goldsmith), nor does he discuss any contribution of 20th century spiritual feminist thought other than a brief dismissal several paragraphs later (yes, I'm coming to that, grrrrrr).

Magid says,

"Renewal added to that mix Jungian and neo-Jungian psychology, theories of holistic healing, and a belief in multiculturalism – creeds straight out of the New Age culture that developed in the 1970s."

Though he doesn't define exactly what "New Age culture" includes today, he does say that it re-emerged in the 1970s bringing with it concepts from 19th century metaphysical thought. He also apparently doesn't include feminist/Goddess thought under the rubric "New Age." I agree with both of these assessments.

Under the subhead, "Paradigm Shift," Magid observes:

"Renewal founder Reb Zalman Shacter-Shalomi calls what he is doing a 'Paradigm Shift' from a theology where God exists but is utterly distant, to a world where God is an organic part of creation."

Magid sources this idea to Buddhism and New Age thought. I question this. We usually think of Buddhism as teaching that the primary quality of life and the material world is suffering, and that the way to nirvana (an egoless state of utter peace) involves movement away from the material world and thus away from suffering. Most of us think of Buddhism as having little to say about "God," certainly in the Abrahamic sense of a single all-powerful deity. But even if we were to ascribe some deity description to Buddhism as it is most commonly understood, because of its negative view of the material world one could hardly describe that deity as "an organic part of creation." I suppose, however, that since there are so many varieties of Buddhism, it’s possible that one or more of them could somehow be interpreted to include immanence of deity in the material world. But it’s certainly not what one commonly thinks of as Buddhism. As for "New Age thought," as Magid indicates, much of this is material carried forward from metaphysical groups and writing of the late 19th century. And in the 21st century it still retains strong elements of separating the spiritual from the material, and also tends to be hierarchical (for example, the board of directors type group that you supposedly meet after you "cross over").

Which contemporary spiritual path does involve extensive discussion of a paradigm shift from transcendent ("utterly distant") God to organic deity? Three guesses and the first two don’t count. That’s right – Goddess spirituality. From Starhawk to Riane Eisler to Carol Christ – and beyond. But does Magid mention this connection? Hah!

Magid says:

"American practitioners of Eastern religions – and particularly those who identify with New Age movements – share a belief in the world as a living organism, or as Reb Zalman calls it, 'Gaia consciousness,' a belief that refracts nature religion and pantheism through a revised monotheistic lens. . . .Zalman argues that the disciple [sic? does he mean discipline?] of your father represents the old paradigm, the Torah of patriarchy. If one can no longer hear that Torah, there is still the instruction of your mother, [italics Magid's] the Torah of Gaia, the notion of the world as an organism..."

But the concept of Gaia consciousness is not only refracted by Reb Zalman; it’s also common among Goddess and non-Goddess folks. It has both spiritual and scientific aspects. The scientific Gaia Theory, which sees the Earth as a living organism, was first proposed by James Lovelock in the 1960s, but not widely accessible to the general public until the publication of Lovelock’s book, The Quest for Gaia in 1975. Was it synchronistic that this occurred at about the same time that Goddess feminists/ecofeminists were pointing out the relationship between the trashing of the environment and religious views in which "man" is given "dominion over" the Earth? Or do you think perhaps there was some sharing of opinions along the way? In any case, naming the theory and "consciousness"(and type of Torah!) after Gaia, ancient Greek Mother Goddess, certainly points to Goddess influence, and the spiritual views now called "Gaia consciousness" were elucidated early on by Goddess feminists. Then how can "Gaia consciousness" be called specifically New Age? While it’s true that many who consider themselves "New Agers" are interested in it, not all New Agers are avid environmentalists. And not everybody who sees Earth as an organism and relates to this idea spiritually is part of the "New Age culture." Interest in the scientific basis of and relationship to global warming issues of Gaia theory/consciousness extends far beyond the boundaries of New Age. Could it be that Magid credits Gaia consciousness to "New Age" to avoid giving credit to Goddess and/or Neo-Pagan thealogy, which, after ignoring, he then disses and dismisses under the subhead, "Post-Monotheism":

"Zalman's Judaism is not a neopagan pantheism that seeks to retrieve a pre-monotheistic paradigm that was corrupted by the (patriarchal) domination of monotheism."

Whew!!! I was worried there for a while, but now when you assure me that this isn't Neo-Paganism, I feel soooooo much better, especially when you go on to tell me in the very next sentence that spiritual feminist stuff is also simply a retrieval and restoration project: "

"One does find that view among Zalman's contemporaries, particularly in the works of feminists such as Adrianne [sic] Rich (especially her early work), Meryll [sic] Stone, Riane Eisler, Starhawk, and perhaps most prominently Jenny Kien's Reinstating the Divine Woman in Judaism....
Rather the theology Zalman suggests is more constructive than restorative...."

If Magid had read all the books more thoroughly (and respected the authors enough to get their first names right: Adrienne Rich, Merlin Stone) he might have come to different conclusions. Though there may be a few Neo-Pagan groups who are trying to exactly reconstruct ancient polytheistic religions, they are in the minority and Goddess feminists are not usually among them. The authors Magid mentions don’t propose to just retrieve ancient religions. What Stone, Eisler, Starhawk, and Kien do is deconstruct religious beliefs using what we have of the history of religion, then reconstruct in our imaginations – not propose that they be adopted exactly as they were – what pre-patriarchal religions might have been like, and then construct in real life new spiritual forms.

For example, in her still-popular 1979 book, The Spiral Dance, Starhawk, who is also an environmental activist, describes one idea of what might have been "the Ancient Religion of the Great Goddess," but ends the book with a chapter on ,"Creating Religion: Towards the Future," in which she says:

"When God is felt to be separate from the physical world, religion can be split off from science, and limited to the realm of things having to do with God. But Goddess is manifest in the physical world, and the more we understand its workings, the better we know Her. . . . I would like to see the Goddess religion of the future be firmly grounded in science."

Starhawk goes on to discuss the spirals of DNA and galaxies.

And then there’s Riane Eisler. In her influential 1987 book, The Chalice and the Blade: Our History Our Future, Eisler traces the anthropological and sociopolitical history of religion back to the early Neolithic (6000 BCE), but not so that we will adopt ancient Goddess-worshipping religions exactly as they were then. Rather it is so that we will understand that society was not always structured on domination and hierarchy but at one time, before Goddess worship was forcibly suppressed, was built around cooperation and equality. Eisler’s concern for the present and future is not primarily the establishment of religions; rather she hopes historical knowledge will help us move out of our present dominator (her term) paradigm to a new social paradigm based on what she terms "partnership." The last chapter in Chalice and the Blade is about building "a Partnership Future." A later book she wrote with David Loye, The Partnership Way, and their organization, the Center for Partnership Studies focuses on how to put partnership theories into practice now and in the future in various types of non-sectarian groups and relationships.

And then we come to Jenny Kien's 2000 book, Reinstating the Divine Woman in Judaism, which Magid elevates to prominence (as well it should be—it’s a terrific book!). Kien, a Ph.D. neurobiologist, looks specifically at the history of Goddess worship in the Ancient Near East and its relevance to Judaism and sees as one possibility, the inclusion of Asherah in modern Judaism. But contrary to Magid’s implication, she doesn’t advocate the restoration of pre-Abrahamic Goddess worship as it existed in antiquity. Here’s what Kien, does advocate (on pp. 201-202) :

"...a compromise, a mixing of the new (or old) imagery with the current traditions, an evolution instead of revolution’.
"There are many paths that this evolution can take. One of them is the taking up of old goddess religions, redefining them according to our needs, and developing a modern form of spirituality. This is the path taken by the new goddess religions and the modern feminist spirituality movement that center on the Divine Woman....I do not advocate turning our backs completely on the traditional religions. Instead, it is necessary to reinstate the Divine Woman in all religions where she is missing."

It's certainly clear from these quotes and from just about anything else you might read by Goddess feminists, that we are not advocating restoring ancient Goddess religions exactly as they were in antiquity. I wonder why Magid needed to make it seem otherwise?

We Goddess feminists don’t pretend to know all the details of religions before 3000 BCE, we can only make educated guesses. But what we do know from extensive and growing archeological evidence is that they included imagery of the divine embodied as female, i.e., goddesses. Most of us realize, however, that there would probably be parts of these religions that would be anachronistic, even possibly distasteful. What we do do, and what these authors did, is create anew by combining what we have discovered about pre-patriarchal religions with what has gone on in religion and spiritual beliefs in the thousands of years since then, sometimes introducing concepts, images, rituals, etc. to counter that influence.

We’re almost through here, but I can’t stop without sharing a couple of other Magid quotes. Under the subhead, "A Leap 'Outside' ," in the next to the last paragraph in the article, Magid writes:

"The God that is (re)created in Jewish Renewal is no longer the God of classical monotheism, nor is it the 'return of the gods' in the Nietzschean fashion or the new spirituality of neopaganism..."

Wait! Neo-Paganism has a new spirituality??? But I thought you just said it's merely retrieving a pre-monotheistic paradigm.... Oh well, go ahead

"but a post-monotheistic God who is both one and many, close at hand and within one's reach."

Yes, and we call this post-monotheisitic deity Goddess, right?

But no, because when crediting the influences of this "post-monotheistic" concept of deity Magid lists:

"Baal Shem Tov, the Seer of Lublin, Nahman of Bratslav...Emerson, Whitman, Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, Henry Steel Olcott, Felix Adler, Thomas Wentworth Higgenson, Jiddu Krishnamurti, Thomas Merton, the Beats, and others in the American spiritualist tradition...."

But not, definitely not, Starhawk, Eisler, Kien, (and others most of us could name) and not even Carol P. Christ, a Ph.D. in Religious Studies from Yale, who has written about these concepts in modern Goddess religions for at least 25 years and most recently in her 1997 book, Rebirth of the Goddess, and has even written about the similarities between Goddess concepts and process theology in her 2003 book, She Who Changes. Why not?

Why does Magid go out of his way to distance himself, to put it politely, from feminists and Neo-Pagans while appropriating their concepts?

Well, maybe you can think of some answers to these questions. Maybe not. Certainly articles like this one leave a big question mark in my mind. Medusa Coils plans to look at other articles and maybe even books that similarly raise our blood pressure from time to time. If you know of any we should consider, hope you’ll leave a comment. In the meantime, I’ll be stocking up on bp meds.

TAGS: news spiritual feminism Goddess Network of Spiritual Progressives Tikkun feminism feminist Jewish Renewal Shaul Magid Gaia Riane Eisler Adrienne Rich Merlin Stone Jenny Kien Carol Christ

Why Are We Here?

As Medusa Coils, we hope 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.

Goddess authors, philosophers, researchers, and practitioners have spent a good deal of time and effort over the last several decades researching the history of the suppression of the divine embodied as female. Unlike the adherents of most other religions, who are rarely challenged when they base their beliefs on faith, Goddess people have used anthropology, archeology, and history to substantiate their claims. Yet we are still criticized for lack of evidence, a criticism that few would level at mainstream religions.

It seems to some of us that when we aren't being criticized with unfounded and distorted statements, we are being ignored. By ignored, I mean that concepts, ideas, historical findings, that originated with Goddess thinkers and writers are now being un-Goddessed: the thoughts and ideas are used pointedly without reference to Goddess spirituality and sometimes at the same time as the writer or speaker is putting down "that Goddess stuff" or feminist theology. As the Goddess is being disappeared from discourse, so are women's contributions to 20th and 21st century religious and spiritual thinking being erased. Sound familiar?

Medusa Coils is going 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. Some writers have already been doing this. Two examples are Max Dashu's "Knocking Down Straw Dolls" and Starhawk's "Response to Charlotte Allen's Article" . These were written a few years ago and are terrific. We plan to do more! And we hope you will help by leaving suggestions in the comment area about examples of these we should cover.

We also plan to point out writing that takes concepts from Goddess or feminist theological writings but fails to credit them as such. Although a certain amount of "borrowing" from one spiritual path to another is common, it seems to us that much of what is going on today is an intentional slight of Goddess scholars and of women. 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. Look for a diary here on such an article in the near future. And if any instances of this devious practice comes to mind, please leave a comment for us to follow up.

We also plan to help readers find articles and information on Goddess websites and blogs, tell you about opportunities to publish papers and articles, 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.

This blog is named after Medusa, a protective goddess sometimes associated with righteous anger. Her hair has, or is, coiling snakes, a symbol of regeneration. For more about her, go here