From: shava@hermes.oit.unc.edu (Shava Nerad Averett)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Gender Differences (was Re: masonic morals & dogma)
Date: 13 Apr 92 22:37:33 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

In article <1992Apr10.210653.25399@PA.dec.com> dantonio@flashy.tay2.dec.com writes:
>General Note: This probably doesn't have much to do with magick so
>feel free to either take it to E-mail or alt.flame...Nor does it have
>much to do with the Masons, since I'm not one...
>
>That said, I must admit I sat on my hands through this thread. But, it
>seems to me there is an assumption being made, namely that men and
>women aren't different in any significant way with regards to magick.

That is not the point I was trying to make.  The point I am making is
that masonic "magick" is not sex differentiated, as may be shown by all
the schismatic groups (GD, OTO, AMORC,...) that are gender integrated
and practice much of the same stuff.

The other point I was making was that in the sources I have ever been
able to find, there is *no* stated dogma that says: "This is why women
are excluded."

>So, the questions I'd ask are:
>
>1. Are men and women different at all?
>
Duh.

>2. If so, does this difference influence magickal ability?
>
This has always been a hard question for me.  In finality I have come to
a working assumption that we all have some aspects of the anima and animus,
and that it is *desirable* to be able to identify with the feminine and
the masculine (as opposed to "the female and the male") both.

To me, the question is very much like:  Do humanists think differently
from scientists?  Well, it's not easily provable, but I suspect so.  But
I also know people who are generalists, and travel amphibiously in both
worlds.  Many of those people would claim that the distinction between
humanities and sciences is artificial.

I have a working hypothesis that my magickal ability is the equal,
potentially, of any man.  So for "quantity" I would like to say that
men and women are probably equal.

For "quality" or "flavor," if you will, I think that you can again go
back to the idea of humanities vs. sciences.  I believe that culturally,
women are better adapted to excel in the humanities, whereas men are 
better adapted to excel in the sciences.  Is there something hard wired
there?  Is it biochemical?  Is it magickally differentiated?  I don't
think I could possibly say with any credibility.

>3. If so, is it general or only for certain types of magick or rituals?
>
No idea.

>4. Can the differences, if any, be worked around?
>
Yes, I think any differences can probably be worked around.

>Of course, the politically correct answer is that, while men and women
>are clearly different, it couldn't possibly make any difference and
>I'm a cretin for even asking these questions!
>
I'm sorry to have hit a button here.  I actually *believe* in separate
but equal magickal lodges.  My objection in the masons is that I do not
see them as treating the issue as "separate but equal," but as "separate
and inequal."  In every lodge I have had communication with the OES was
a *subsidiary* activity, with a whole cultural attitude of it being a
conciliatory gesture toward "the ladies."

>One could also posit that men have an edge in certain types of magick
>and women have an edge in other types, just as men have a physical
>edge in upper body strength and women have an edge in endurance. But
>my belief is that the edge, if any, is slight enough not to make a
>difference until "peak levels" were reached. Same with physical
>differences; there are lots of women who have more upper body strength
>than I and I've got more endurance than many women. And no, I'm not
>going to speculate which magicks EITHER gender would have an edge in! ;-)

Which is just what I was saying above, I think...

>As for the Masons, this also bugs me. It seems that it's fine for
>women to have women-only colleges, circles, festivals, etc., but if
>men have them, it sets off a firestorm. Strikes me as very
>hypocritical. And last I checked, the Masons were a private group so
>they can have any rules they want, non? I'm bummed they won't let
>women in and I'm bummed the women-only circles won't let me in, either.
>
I'm not asking if the difference is *legal* or not.  I'm asking if it
makes any sense.  There is some bit of stuff in the masonic tradition
which states that "women, doddards, drunkards and children" (paraphrased,
no doubt) may not be masons.  What do you think of this grouping?
If it is a men's lodge, for the *sake* of being a men's lodge, then they
should simply say so.  I find that the masonic material is very interesting,
and I want to understand what it is that makes the mainline masonic 
traditions feel that they should be male-only.

I am also bugged by sex-segregated circles and magickal working groups
when I believe that they are there to *protect* the membership from the
opposite sex, rather than to *promote* "{fe}male bonding."  On the other
hand I have participated in some number of sex-segregated rituals, and
don't find it a problem.

Example:  In Durham a few years ago, there was a beltane celebration that
was wimmin-only.  I called to find out if there were going to be a men's
circle.  The reaction was, basically, "Ikky, no.  This is goddess worship.
Why would men be interested?"  (I note in passing that this was a women's
spirituality working group, not a(n openly?) pagan group.)  I declined
to attend.

On the other hand, I have been tempted to someday found a women's spa
and call it "The Mikvah."  I probably never will, because I'm sure that
there are men and women who would be offended, but I have a particular
understanding of the term.  A mikvah is the ritual bath to which a 
menstruating woman retires to be purified during her period.  Although
I doubt if this is actually the historical origin of the practice, there
is an attraction to the thought that there might be a place where I can
hang out (particularly during my period) in a hot tub, and just chat
trivially with other women, far from the concerns of the mundane world.
There are certainly days when the mundane world would be happier...;-)

Has my viewpoint become thoroughly inconsistant yet?  I don't really 
pretend to have the answers, but I am fascinated with the questions...!



>Now, where'd I put that flame-retardant??
>
>DDA
>
>--
>dantonio@magick.tay2.dec.com -or- dantonio@sword1.enet.dec.com
>  I've tried to dance with what life had to hand me
>    My partner's been pleasure, my partner's been pain
>				-Stevie Nicks


-- 
Shava Nerad Averett				shava_averett@unc.edu
/*  all materials (c)1992, Shava Nerad Averett, and have nothing significant
    to do with the University of North Carolina, a mostly owned subsidiary 
    of the NC Legislature, a mostly owned subsidiary of the DOT.      */