gretchen@cattell.psych.upenn.edu (Gretchen Chapman) (06/19/89)
[sorry for delay - aspen has been having numerous problems with our connections to the rest of the world - MHN] I am involved in a Philadelphia-based group known as Sophia's House. We are interested in study and ritual centering on the figure of Sophia (or Wisdom) who is the most detailed feminine personification of the Divine in the Judeo-Christian scriptures. She is portrayed as a creator, one present in all things, incarnate (imaged as a tree and related to Jesus in the Christian scriptures), teacher, lover, and mother. As a feminist who is troubled by the patriarchy inherent in Christianity, but still wishing to remain a part of this tradition, I find the figure of Sophia very accessible. I am wondering whether others on this net are interested in feminist spirituality and what your experiences with it are. Also, if anyone is interested in knowing more about Sophia or has ideas about how I could reach interested parties, you may reach me by e-mail. Gretchen Chapman gretchen@cattell.psych.upenn.edu
gretchen@cattell.psych.upenn.edu (Gretchen Chapman) (06/23/89)
I am involved in a Philadelphia-based group known as Sophia's House. We are interested in study and ritual centering on the figure of Sophia (or Wisdom) who is the most detailed feminine personification of the Divine in the Judeo-Christian scriptures. She is portrayed as a creator, one present in all things, incarnate (imaged as a tree and related to Jesus in the Christian scriptures), teacher, lover, and mother. As a feminist who is troubled by the patriarchy inherent in Christianity, but still wishing to remain a part of this tradition, I find the figure of Sophia very accessible. I am wondering whether others on this net are interested in feminist spirituality and what your experiences with it are. Also, if anyone is interested in knowing more about Sophia or has ideas about how I could reach interested parties, you may reach me by e-mail. Gretchen Chapman gretchen@cattell.psych.upenn.edu
gdh@calmasd.Prime.COM (06/27/89)
Sophia will lead you back into traditions much older than the Christian scriptures. In the Gnostic creation story Sophia was the grandmother of Jehovah. Her daughter Achamoth went to earth as the serpent to opose Jehovah's prohibition of knowledge for the people of his creation. Sophia was one of the manifestations of the Great Mother and as the Spirit of Female Wisdom she was the first of the members of the Trinity, being herself a Triple Godess as the wise woman, mother and virgin. She was often symbolized as a dove. Sophia was "The Holy Ghost" in the Trinity of the Roman Cristians (actually, as Uni (Juventas-Juno-Menarva)) and it is truly amazing how successful the "Church" has been in keeping this secret. Primary reference (highly recommended): Walker, Barbara G., "The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets", Harper and Row, New York, 1983 (1124 pages, available in paperback) -- / Gerald Hall, UNIX SysAdmin, (619) 587-3065 / Calma - A Division of Prime Computer Inc. / 9805 Scranton Road, San Diego, CA 92121
tim@toad.COM (Tim Maroney) (06/28/89)
Despite the message from Gerald Hall, Barbara G. Walker is not a
reliable source for information on myths. The fact that she tries to
draw metaphors from Cinderella's glass slipper should have been a
tip-off; even outside the realms of folklore and literary history, it
is widely known that the term "glass" was a mistake for the similar
French term for "squirrel fur" in the original. Anyone with
specialist knowledge in any religion will find a multitude of equally
stupid errors in Walker's entries describing that religion. The book
is a tissue of unfounded speculations without sufficient references to
even make it possible to check references that one is intrigued by.
It is therefore worthless and frustrating.
Every time I see a later Walker book on the shelves, THE SKEPTICAL
FEMINIST, I can't suppress a feeling of nausea. If she's a skeptic,
then Uri Geller was Pyrrho in a past life.
One more note -- someone else referred to an exhaustive survey of
religions that led them to realize that the moon was always female and
the sun always male. I can't take too seriously an "exhaustive
survey" that somehow omits the still living, very successful, and very
widely known religion of Shinto.
--
Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com
Postal: 424 Tehama, SF CA 94103; Phone: (415) 495-2934
"Those Jesus freaks, well, they're friendly but
the shit they believe has got their minds all shut."
-- Frank Zappa, "The Meek Shall Inherit Nothing"
--
mi gloria es vivir tan libre, como el pajaro del cielo |tittle@ics.uci.edu
no hago nido en este suelo, donde hay tanto que sufrir |tittle@uci.bitnet
y nadie me ha de seguir, cuando yo remonto el vuelo |..!ucbvax!ucivax!tittle
--jose hernandez, _martin_fierro_, 1872rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) (06/29/89)
In article <1336@cattell.psych.upenn.edu> gretchen@cattell.psych.upenn.edu (Gretchen Chapman) writes: > I am involved in a Philadelphia-based group known as Sophia's House. >We are interested in study and ritual centering on the figure of >Sophia (or Wisdom) who is the most detailed feminine personification >of the Divine in the Judeo-Christian scriptures. I'm very disturbed by the notion of "feminine spirituality". I deliberately do not say "feminist spirituality", because it seems to me to be very profoundly anti-feminist. Here's why I think so. The inevitable rationalization used by anti-feminists is that women are "naturally" better suited to nurturing, family/household matters, child care etc etc -- that the very *nature* of femininity underlies the realities that feminists are trying to break out of. The crucial step of feminism, one of them at least, was to point out that gender is a purely social construct, that "feminine" and "masculine" are socially and historically specific; in short that these are not "natural" notions at all, however much they may seem to be so. The kind of "eternal feminine" implied by "feminine spirituality" is just the opposite of this. It's a return to transcendental gender, supposedly valid for all times and places; and as such it undoes one of the greatest advances of latter day feminism. It re-naturalizes the concept "feminine" just as we're finally beginning to escape from the ideology of "natural", as opposed to historical and social, gender. Replacing the patriarchal notions of, for instance, Christianity, by matriarchal ones does not seem to me to be a step in the direction of feminism. Just as we have to give up some comforting certainties about our own sexual/gender indentities (all of us, male and female) it may be that we have to give up on religions which attempt, intentionally or not, to reinscribe those certainties and thus undo a lot of hard, but essential, work. A feminized Christianity or Judaism is not feminist.
gdh@calmasd.Prime.COM (Gerald Hall) (06/29/89)
> Barbara G. Walker is not a reliable source for information on myths. > ... > The book is a tissue of unfounded speculations without sufficient > references to even make it possible to check references that one is > intrigued by. It is therefore worthless and frustrating. > -- > Tim Maroney I have to agree with Tim's criticisms of Walker's books: there are many errors and there is insufficient footnoting. However, I obviously disagree with the conclusion that the books are worthless. Any work of nearly 1200 pages attempting to find unifying themes relating to women in all of the worlds religions and mythologies is going to contain errors, both of fact and inference. And attempting to turn such a book into a scholarly monograph with careful footnotes and rigorous exclusion of anything that couldn't be proven would have destroyed it by making the task too difficult to be possible in a lifetime. What the _Encyclopedia of Women's Myths and Secrets_ does manage to do is open a door to a whole world of ideas relating to the significant role of women in religion before the domination of the West by the misogynist Pauline Catholic church. It also manages to make some sense out of otherwise incomprehensible elements of Christianity by admittedly speculative but immensely plausible scenarios of the early cooptation of many elements of 'pagan' traditions and dieties into the Catholic Church and the merciless suppression of other elements of pre-Christian religions by the Church. Of course it is hard to thoroughly document and 'prove' many of these things: until quite recently one would be put to an excruciating death for advocating any of these ideas, and any supporting evidence would probably be burned with you. -- / Gerald Hall, UNIX SysAdmin, (619) 587-3065 / Calma - A Division of Prime Computer Inc. / 9805 Scranton Road, San Diego, CA 92121
mls@mhuxu.ATT.COM (michael.l.siemon) (06/29/89)
In article <42102@bbn.COM>, rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) writes: > Replacing the patriarchal notions of, for instance, Christianity, by > matriarchal ones does not seem to me to be a step in the direction of > feminism... A feminized Christianity or Judaism is not feminist. This sounds plausible, and there is a definite point you've made, but neither is a neutered Christianity going to be feminist. It seems to me that one wants a PLAY of gender attributes, possibly a dramatic and unstable one (except that most people are hung up on the notion of an unchanging divinity.) Now, if only I could get my own conceptions of gender figured out, I might be able to understand the applications of that to theology :-) -- Michael L. Siemon "Inflict Thy promises with each contracted to AT&T Bell Laboratories Occasion of distress, att!mhuxu!mls That from our incoherence we standard disclaimer May learn to put our trust in Thee"
ravenb@uunet.uu.net (Raven Brewster) (06/30/89)
YES!! I couldn't hit the "r" key fast enough to respond. I too am involved in feminist spitituality, and have been so turned off to judeo-christian culture that I've resorted to more ancient women powers (Greek, native American, etc) Whatever fits and feels right is what I keep and use. And I would love to learn more about Sophia. Thanks, Raven Brewster ...!uunet!sco!ravenb or ravenb@sco.COM
dhw@itivax.iti.ORG (David H. West) (06/30/89)
In article <42102@bbn.COM> rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) writes: >the realities that feminists are trying to break out of. The crucial >step of feminism, one of them at least, was to point out that gender >is a purely social construct, that "feminine" and "masculine" are >socially and historically specific; in short that these are not >"natural" notions at all, however much they may seem to be so. It appears that you prefer a different "purely social construct". Fine, unless you want to claim that yours is in some sense "more right", in which case you'll need a different argument. >The kind of "eternal feminine" implied by "feminine spirituality" is >just the opposite of this. It's a return to transcendental gender, >supposedly valid for all times and places; and as such it undoes one >of the greatest advances of latter day feminism. It re-naturalizes the >concept "feminine" just as we're finally beginning to escape from the >ideology of "natural", as opposed to historical and social, gender. The argument from "progress"? One needs to be careful. There were chemists who resisted the now-accepted explanation of radioactivity on the grounds that it involved transmutation, which was a return to alchemy. >Just as we have to give up some comforting certainties >about our own sexual/gender indentities (all of us, male and female) Most of the time, I find that people who want me to give up what they call my comforting certainties really want me to adopt *their* comforting certainties. Nature seems to have a habit of not being quite as straightforward as any of us expect. -David West dhw@itivax.iti.org
rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) (06/30/89)
In article <1868@itivax.iti.org> "David H. West" <dhw@itivax.iti.ORG> writes: [ in reply to my article on feminist spirituality; I've deleted the quotes from that article] >It appears that you prefer a different "purely social construct". >Fine, unless you want to claim that yours is in some sense "more >right", in which case you'll need a different argument. > >The argument from "progress"? One needs to be careful. There were >chemists who resisted the now-accepted explanation of radioactivity >on the grounds that it involved transmutation, which was a return to >alchemy. > >Most of the time, I find that people who want me to give up what >they call my comforting certainties really want me to adopt *their* >comforting certainties. Nature seems to have a habit of not being >quite as straightforward as any of us expect. I must admit, I'm at a loss to understand the relevance of any of this. I claimed that eternal, natural gender stands in contrast to contingent, historical, socially specific gender; that the former works in opposition to feminism because it makes the status quo "natural", part of an "eternal order" and therefore valid and unchangable; and that a feminist spirituality which replaces an eternal, personal male deity with an eternal, personal female one retains this idea of natural and eternal (or transcendental) gender. I don't see any arguments against any of those points, so I don't quite know how to reply. Do you believe that there is no difference between the two conceptions of gender I described? That eternal and natural gender can be compatible with feminism? That the feminist spirituality we've seen described here does not imply transcendental gender? Tell me what you're objecting to and I'll attempt to respond (perhaps by email instead of the net).
bloch%mandrill@ucsd.edu (Steve Bloch) (06/30/89)
rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) writes: >The crucial >step of feminism, one of them at least, was to point out that gender >is a purely social construct, that "feminine" and "masculine" are >socially and historically specific; in short that these are not >"natural" notions at all, however much they may seem to be so. Well, not PURELY social. Aside, of course, from reproductive differences, there are certainly skills at which the average woman is significantly (in a chi-squared sense) better or worse than the average man, and for some of these there is no evidence to indicate a social explanation. However, there is quite a bit of overlap in the curves. >The >kind of "eternal feminine" implied by "feminine spirituality" is just >the opposite of this. It's a return to transcendental gender, >supposedly valid for all times and places.... Right; I continue to believe that the only absolute differences between men and women are in physical structure. It's plausible, for example, that for biological reasons women could have more "nurturing" (whatever that means) personalities on average than men, but I suspect if you found a way to quantify it, you'd find the most nurturing 20% of men to be more so than the least nurturing 20% of women. On the other hand, when we get down to practicalities, this is the sort of thinking that had the Reagan administration gutting affir- mative action. "Society should be color-blind" (or gender-blind) is a great slogan, but society is NOT NOW color- or gender-blind, and therefore women have different problems than men do and may need a way to develop their own spiritual lives in response to those problems. As long as they don't cut themselves off; both of us is better than either of us. "A crystalline set of dominoes / Except not really crystalline; And sort of domino-like, / But not really." -- Jane Siberry Steve Bloch
joann@prism.TMC.COM (06/30/89)
A couple of good sources you might want to check (I don't know if they
reference Sophia specifically) are:
anything by Merlin Stone ("Ancient Mirrors of Womanhood(?)", and also
another title I can't remember)
a large very informative book ("The White Goddess" (?)) by Robert Graves
also, if you can find and dig through old issues of "WomanSpirit" magazine
(out of Wolf Creek, OR; no longer publishing) you're bound to come across
something.mls@att.att.COM (06/30/89)
Richard Shapiro wrote: + + >> Replacing the patriarchal notions of, for instance, Christianity, by + >> matriarchal ones does not seem to me to be a step in the direction of + >> feminism... A feminized Christianity or Judaism is not feminist. and my response was: + >This sounds plausible, and there is a definite point you've made, but + >neither is a neutered Christianity going to be feminist. It seems to + >me that one wants a PLAY of gender attributes, possibly a dramatic and + >unstable one. He repeats what I omitted and extends it a bit: + The ellipsis of the quote above expands as follows: + + Just as we have to give up some comforting certainties + about our own sexual/gender identities (all of us, male and female) Agreed; one very important contribution of feminism to our whole intellectual structure is to open the question of gender, to insist that there's something wrong with the traditional "certainties" (or equally rigid "modern" ones). + it may be that we have to give up on religions which attempt, + intentionally or not, to reinscribe those certainties and thus undo a + lot of hard, but essential, work. + + A "neutered" Christianity is not at all what I had in mind, as the + omitted portion of the quote makes clear. The point I was making was + that categories like "feminine" and "masculine" should be highly + suspect whenever they're offered as transcendentals; and that I elided the part I did, even though it was close to the central point, because I am *not* in agreement here, or at least not with what I take to be the underlying point (maybe I'm overreading) -- namely there seems here to be an ideologically based rejection of religion, or at least of the religions of Christianity and Judaism. As a Christian, and a feminist (and as a gay man with transsexual inclinations and a very complex relation to gender constructions in our society) I obviously feel that there is some way of creatively resolving the tensions of my position. I do agree that simply "replacing patriarchal notions by matriarchal ones" is not likely to be a good answer (what is the question? a sprituality that is not distorted by social assumptions that cripple us, male or female.) My suggestion was that, to the extent that a deity is personal and gendered, the gender attributes need a dynamic construction, not a rigidly pre-defined one (which I would oppose, as Mr. Shapiro does.) But my spiritual search, like that which started this thread, involves as one *starting* point the postive use of feminine gender within the traditions -- and Hagia Sophia or the Jewish Wisdom figure are definitely good entry points here. (Thus, I want to encourage the sort of explorations Mr. Shapiro is warning against.) One philosophical quibble: talking about gender in a "transcendental" context seems to me misleading -- transcendental philosophies, whether Platonic or Kantian or whatever, tend to *de*personalize at the largest scale, and to be perhaps the *least* genderal of any religio-philosophical systems. Instead, the main point is the one explicitly stated later, that of deity as person: + My own feeling is that ANY personalized deity will be just as gendered + as we humans are (gender being a large part of what makes a god + "personal"), and that the very notion of an eternal, gendered being is + profoundly opposed to the crucial concept of contingent, historical, + socially specific gender which feminists have developed. I think we agree here while coming to rather different final evaluations. Given that gender attribution is important to human beings, we will to that extent tend to take a personalized deity as gendered in some manner. But I am not ready at this stage in my own thinking to grant it as "a large part of what makes a god 'personal.'" Rather, it is the *interaction* of people that defines the "personal" and constitutes the model (or the reality, for someone who believes in this as "revelation") of deity as personal. And if deity is conceived in terms of interaction, then a dramatic development of a role (genderal or otherwise) is inherent in the conception. I hope this "unpacks" my previous note; I am not so much contradiciting Mr. Shapiro as taking his points and repointing them in a different direction. ---------- Michael L. Siemon "Inflict Thy promises with each contracted to AT&T Bell Laboratories Occasion of distress, att!mhuxu!mls That from our incoherence we standard disclaimer May learn to put our trust in Thee"
jjb@cs.wayne.edu (J. Brewster) (07/03/89)
I, too, am interested in a discussion of feminist spirituality. More specifically, I'm interested in the experiences of others, rather than a debate about whether it's PC to worship goddesses, etc. (Not to denigrate those involved in that debate, this is simply where *my* interest lies.) I'm most interested in Native American myths and practices, but would find most any feminist spirituality interesting. My interest stems from the realization that to the extent that our gods are both anthropomorphic and male, we've only got half-gods. Whether we're male or female, I believe we stand to gain by somehow extending our concept of deity to include both masculine and feminine. -- J. Brewster | The best lack all conviction, while the worst jjb@cs.wayne.edu | are filled with passionate intensity. ...!mailrus!wsu-cs!jjb | W. B. Yeats
carolf@uunet.UU.NET (Carol Freinkel) (07/07/89)
In article <265800001@prism> joann@prism.TMC.COM writes: >also, if you can find and dig through old issues of "WomanSpirit" magazine >(out of Wolf Creek, OR; no longer publishing) you're bound to come across >something. WomanSpirit produced forty issues between 1974 and 1984. Back issues (limited selection) are still available. Write to: WomanSpirit 2000 King Mountain Trail Wolf Creek, OR 97497 Copies are each 64 pages with no advertisements. Back copies are still relatively inexpensive for those issues still remaining. Highly recommended.