feminst theory *mumble grumble*
Jan. 28th, 2007 11:54 pmSo, I'm reading the chapter in Diane Purkiss' The Witch in History where she talks about modern pagans witches. I can't dispute, and in fact agree with, her claims about the ahistorical nature of modern witchcraft's foundation myths and the dangers of them.
But I can't help being wierded out by her objection to the celebration of traditionally female roles and ideas. There seems to be some idea that if you identify with ideas that were discussed by patriarchial men about femaleness you are clearly putting yourself and betraying women.
Interestingly, she also claims that pagan women rarely get involved in political activism and instead involve themselves with navel-gazing self-help rituals (or words to that effect). I find this hard to believe but this section would be the one in her book most biased by her personal experiences with actual modern women pagans, and her reaction to them.
If I were thinking in the Goddesses in Everywoman vein, I would peg this reaction as clearly Athena-like, and it seems as if she's modelling the conflict between the rejection of history by the mythology of goddess worship and the academic world's reliance on solid scholarship. It's a tough division, and I think she has good points to make, especially about the dangers of absorbing into our textual history the writings of men who pointed to Diana-as-muse. Also, the mythology of the return-to-the-earth while living in a urban setting does have the issues she points out.
I understand the idea of absolute equality and seeing both men and women as equally qualified to express either side of the duality of life. But it seems to me in practice, it's still asking women to act more like men, and devaluing for everyone those ideas and behaviors that men have traditionally assigned to women. Celebration of the power of things traditionally considered female seems to me to be not the opposite side of the same coin in those circumstances, but offering an alternative to a previous trend of thought.
But I can't help being wierded out by her objection to the celebration of traditionally female roles and ideas. There seems to be some idea that if you identify with ideas that were discussed by patriarchial men about femaleness you are clearly putting yourself and betraying women.
Interestingly, she also claims that pagan women rarely get involved in political activism and instead involve themselves with navel-gazing self-help rituals (or words to that effect). I find this hard to believe but this section would be the one in her book most biased by her personal experiences with actual modern women pagans, and her reaction to them.
If I were thinking in the Goddesses in Everywoman vein, I would peg this reaction as clearly Athena-like, and it seems as if she's modelling the conflict between the rejection of history by the mythology of goddess worship and the academic world's reliance on solid scholarship. It's a tough division, and I think she has good points to make, especially about the dangers of absorbing into our textual history the writings of men who pointed to Diana-as-muse. Also, the mythology of the return-to-the-earth while living in a urban setting does have the issues she points out.
I understand the idea of absolute equality and seeing both men and women as equally qualified to express either side of the duality of life. But it seems to me in practice, it's still asking women to act more like men, and devaluing for everyone those ideas and behaviors that men have traditionally assigned to women. Celebration of the power of things traditionally considered female seems to me to be not the opposite side of the same coin in those circumstances, but offering an alternative to a previous trend of thought.