From: dantonio@magick.tay2.dec.com (David D'Antonio)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Gender Differences (was Re: masonic morals & dogma)
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:25:33 GMT
Reply-To: dantonio@flashy.tay2.dec.com
Organization: None to speak of...


In article <1992Apr13.223733.28964@samba.oit.unc.edu>, shava@hermes.oit.unc.edu (Shava Nerad Averett) 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.

I know that this wasn't the point you were trying to make (after all,
I did say that my post didn't have much to do with the Masons).

[deleted]

|>>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.

I agree with this...

|>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 think the distinction isn't artificial, it is based on the subject
matter. Scientists usually study the "real world" (whatever that might
be :-), whereas the humanities folks are studying (and writing about,
etc) the human condition (people and how they relate to each other/the
world around them). Some folks have tried to do both and there is much
awe and wonder to be found in some elegant theories, but it can be
hard to express in a way that "lay people" can udnerstand it. Does
this sound familiar??

|>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.

You had brought up earlier the idea of different hormones/psychoactives
bathing our brains since birth. The difference this makes with regard
to magick, I too am unable to 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."

I put that paragraph in to hit on the PC folks, not because I believe
it! Again, my posting wasn't supposed to be a justification of the
Mason's behaviour, but an inquiry into gender differences, if any...

[deleted]

|>>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?

I think it reflects a particularly less than optimal view of women. If
they feel that women can't "cut it" as Masons, I'd be interested in
why as well...

|>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 agree here, as well. If the Masons want to be men-only cause they
want men's space, I say Go for it. But be honest in what you're doing,
guys...

|>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.

Same here. If they want a women-only space (sorry, my spelling is
immune from PC "spells"), let 'em declare it and be honest about why.
And, of course, not try to "crash" men-only space...

|>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...;-)

Sounds like a cool idea to me! A shared private space for women-only
activites makes sense to me. And yes, there are times when the
"mundane world" would be happier...;-)

|>>DDA
|>Shava Nerad Averett				shava_averett@unc.edu

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
Newsgroups: alt.magick