'Feminine' Does *Not* Mean Sensual Rather Than Spiritual

[Guest guest]

>To be feminine is to be more sensual, more caught in the sensory

>desires and the endless loop which

>it generates.

 

That has certainly been the contention of patriarchal theologians

over the centuries. But what has that to do with truth?

 

If the world was not mired in millennia of domination, this negative

definition of the feminine would not matter. As things stand, it is a

linchpin in keeping the status quo going. Consider some other

possibilities, suggested by the generosity of mothers who go without

so they can feed their children, the self-restraint of women who care

for the needs of others and put up with all manner of insult from

religious leaders while they are doing so.

 

blessings,

Max

--

Max Dashu

Suppressed Histories Archives

Global Women's Studies

http://www.suppressedhistories.net

 

 

[Guest guest]

Well i forgot to say that females generally tend to have a more open

heart chakra naturally.

 

There's nothing wrong with sensuality.

 

In hindu myths there's the story of anasuya because of her pativratyam

handles the trimurthis brahma, shiva and vishnu as little kids.

 

If you want call Yin Yang and Yang Yin, it is not an issue.

 

Try going on a wheat only diet for three days and you will know what i

mean by Yang :-)

 

 

, Max Dashu <maxdashu@l...> wrote:

> >To be feminine is to be more sensual, more caught in the sensory

> >desires and the endless loop which

> >it generates.

>

> That has certainly been the contention of patriarchal theologians

> over the centuries. But what has that to do with truth?

>

> If the world was not mired in millennia of domination, this negative

> definition of the feminine would not matter. As things stand, it is a

> linchpin in keeping the status quo going. Consider some other

> possibilities, suggested by the generosity of mothers who go without

> so they can feed their children, the self-restraint of women who care

> for the needs of others and put up with all manner of insult from

> religious leaders while they are doing so.

>

> blessings,

> Max

> --

> Max Dashu

> Suppressed Histories Archives

> Global Women's Studies

> http://www.suppressedhistories.net

>

>

[Guest guest]

"Well i forgot to say that females generally tend to have a more

open heart chakra naturally."

 

It only takes reading a few minutes of reading the posts by

females on this board to realize that the above statement is

untrue. There are females with closed hearts, wounded hearts,

dense hearts, hard hearts as well as open hearts. Moreover,

there are many open hearts here who have a male body.

 

I agree with the person who said that male or female

designations do not matter. What matters is not even the quality

of the actions of a person. All that matters is the soul of the

person, for that soul is also your soul and the soul of everyone

and everything else. Know that soul and you know everything

and your search is over.

 

OM Namah Sivaya

 

Omprem

 

, "malyavan_tibet"

<malyavan_tibet> wrote:

> Well i forgot to say that females generally tend to have a more

open

> heart chakra naturally.

>

> There's nothing wrong with sensuality.

>

> In hindu myths there's the story of anasuya because of her

pativratyam

> handles the trimurthis brahma, shiva and vishnu as little kids.

>

> If you want call Yin Yang and Yang Yin, it is not an issue.

>

> Try going on a wheat only diet for three days and you will know

what i

> mean by Yang :-)

>

>

> , Max Dashu

<maxdashu@l...> wrote:

> > >To be feminine is to be more sensual, more caught in the

sensory

> > >desires and the endless loop which

> > >it generates.

> >

> > That has certainly been the contention of patriarchal

theologians

> > over the centuries. But what has that to do with truth?

> >

> > If the world was not mired in millennia of domination, this

negative

> > definition of the feminine would not matter. As things stand, it

is a

> > linchpin in keeping the status quo going. Consider some

other

> > possibilities, suggested by the generosity of mothers who go

without

> > so they can feed their children, the self-restraint of women

who care

> > for the needs of others and put up with all manner of insult

from

> > religious leaders while they are doing so.

> >

> > blessings,

> > Max

> > --

> > Max Dashu

> > Suppressed Histories Archives

> > Global Women's Studies

> > http://www.suppressedhistories.net

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Excellent points, Ellen. However I would add that not just men, but a very

small and I would call unrepresentative minority of men have been saying what

God is and feminine is and is not (and classfiying to a large degree women as

specifically non-intellectual and non-spiritual). What is needed IMHO is not

necessarily a gender restricted religion, but a break from the assumptions that

have been mascerading as truth as you say for millenia. Men *in general* are

not the problem, we are every bit as capable of perceiving and accepting the

female divine as anyone else.

 

Ellen McGowen <ellen.mcgowen wrote:

As Vaughan points out, in western

patriarchal traditions, female "nurturing" is regarded as an "instinct", thereby

devaluing the creativity, intellectual effort,

learning and sweatwork involved.

 

At her workshop on Kali and Shakta Tantra, Chandra Alexandre mentioned that

Goddess traditions have not been politically

liberating for women in India, and many Indian feminists often do not care for

the old Goddesses. This reminds me of

progressive Catholic women who dislike the Marian tradition for similar reasons.

 

The problem is that men have been doing that far too long, saying what "Goddess"

means and what "feminine" means

from their point of view for thousands of years. They seldom even recognize that

it *is* a point of view. They have come to think it is

just "the Truth".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Amen, brother.

 

And here is one assumption that we can agree to assign to the

trashcan of failed ideas,

 

"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the

man, but to be in silence." 1 Timothy 2:12

 

The impact of biblical nonsense such as this (and its

counterpart in the Koran) has lead to endless wars, the

degradation of our environment and perhaps to the end of the

human race.

 

OM Namah Sivaya

 

Omprem

 

, Dan W

<danw1960> wrote:

> Excellent points, Ellen. However I would add that not just men,

but a very small and I would call unrepresentative minority of

men have been saying what God is and feminine is and is not

(and classfiying to a large degree women as specifically

non-intellectual and non-spiritual). What is needed IMHO is not

necessarily a gender restricted religion, but a break from the

assumptions that have been mascerading as truth as you say

for millenia. Men *in general* are not the problem, we are every

bit as capable of perceiving and accepting the female divine as

anyone else.

>

> Ellen McGowen <ellen.mcgowen@w...> wrote:

> As Vaughan points out, in western

> patriarchal traditions, female "nurturing" is regarded as an

"instinct", thereby devaluing the creativity, intellectual effort,

> learning and sweatwork involved.

>

> At her workshop on Kali and Shakta Tantra, Chandra Alexandre

mentioned that Goddess traditions have not been politically

> liberating for women in India, and many Indian feminists often

do not care for the old Goddesses. This reminds me of

> progressive Catholic women who dislike the Marian tradition

for similar reasons.

>

> The problem is that men have been doing that far too long,

saying what "Goddess" means and what "feminine" means

> from their point of view for thousands of years. They seldom

even recognize that it *is* a point of view. They have come to

think it is

> just "the Truth".

 

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Very true, and unfortunately there seems to be a lot of such nonsense

in our dominant religions and furthermore the more ridiculous the

statement the more some fundamentalist type seems intent on hanging

onto it and promoting it as central to the faith. Which I suppose is

specifically what has sent me on my own journey to find a faith I can

abide by. I'm tired of trying to ignore such garbage while others,

many at high levels within the religious hierarchy, promote rather

than discard it.

 

, "omprem" <omprem> wrote:

> Amen, brother.

>

> And here is one assumption that we can agree to assign to the

> trashcan of failed ideas,

>

> "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the

> man, but to be in silence." 1 Timothy 2:12

>

> The impact of biblical nonsense such as this (and its

> counterpart in the Koran) has lead to endless wars, the

> degradation of our environment and perhaps to the end of the

> human race.

>

> OM Namah Sivaya

>

> Omprem

>

> , Dan W

> <danw1960> wrote:

> > Excellent points, Ellen. However I would add that not just men,

> but a very small and I would call unrepresentative minority of

> men have been saying what God is and feminine is and is not

> (and classfiying to a large degree women as specifically

> non-intellectual and non-spiritual). What is needed IMHO is not

> necessarily a gender restricted religion, but a break from the

> assumptions that have been mascerading as truth as you say

> for millenia. Men *in general* are not the problem, we are every

> bit as capable of perceiving and accepting the female divine as

> anyone else.

> >

> > Ellen McGowen <ellen.mcgowen@w...> wrote:

> > As Vaughan points out, in western

> > patriarchal traditions, female "nurturing" is regarded as an

> "instinct", thereby devaluing the creativity, intellectual effort,

> > learning and sweatwork involved.

> >

> > At her workshop on Kali and Shakta Tantra, Chandra Alexandre

> mentioned that Goddess traditions have not been politically

> > liberating for women in India, and many Indian feminists often

> do not care for the old Goddesses. This reminds me of

> > progressive Catholic women who dislike the Marian tradition

> for similar reasons.

> >

> > The problem is that men have been doing that far too long,

> saying what "Goddess" means and what "feminine" means

> > from their point of view for thousands of years. They seldom

> even recognize that it *is* a point of view. They have come to

> think it is

> > just "the Truth".

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Dear All,

I am not sure in this or other

there was a women telling her initial experience on

chanting lalita sahasranama. she told that when she

started her whole life become let us call it shaky.

but she persisted with the sahasranama. then after

some months she met a sri vidya upasaka who looked at

her and gave kumkum with lemon and told her to worship

with it. After that things are going very good for

her. according to her the kumkum is still fresh.

I wish to know if there is any rule to be

followed in doing lalita sahasranama. I was of the

opinion that nothing is needed for it.What role does

kumkum play or other articles play. All information is

welcome.

JP

--- omprem <omprem wrote:

> Amen, brother.

>

> And here is one assumption that we can agree to

> assign to the

> trashcan of failed ideas,

>

> "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp

> authority over the

> man, but to be in silence." 1 Timothy 2:12

>

> The impact of biblical nonsense such as this (and

> its

> counterpart in the Koran) has lead to endless wars,

> the

> degradation of our environment and perhaps to the

> end of the

> human race.

>

> OM Namah Sivaya

>

> Omprem

>

> , Dan W

> <danw1960> wrote:

> > Excellent points, Ellen. However I would add that

> not just men,

> but a very small and I would call unrepresentative

> minority of

> men have been saying what God is and feminine is and

> is not

> (and classfiying to a large degree women as

> specifically

> non-intellectual and non-spiritual). What is needed

> IMHO is not

> necessarily a gender restricted religion, but a

> break from the

> assumptions that have been mascerading as truth as

> you say

> for millenia. Men *in general* are not the problem,

> we are every

> bit as capable of perceiving and accepting the

> female divine as

> anyone else.

> >

> > Ellen McGowen <ellen.mcgowen@w...> wrote:

> > As Vaughan points out, in western

> > patriarchal traditions, female "nurturing" is

> regarded as an

> "instinct", thereby devaluing the creativity,

> intellectual effort,

> > learning and sweatwork involved.

> >

> > At her workshop on Kali and Shakta Tantra, Chandra

> Alexandre

> mentioned that Goddess traditions have not been

> politically

> > liberating for women in India, and many Indian

> feminists often

> do not care for the old Goddesses. This reminds me

> of

> > progressive Catholic women who dislike the Marian

> tradition

> for similar reasons.

> >

> > The problem is that men have been doing that far

> too long,

> saying what "Goddess" means and what "feminine"

> means

> > from their point of view for thousands of years.

> They seldom

> even recognize that it *is* a point of view. They

> have come to

> think it is

> > just "the Truth".

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Mail - 50x more storage than other

> providers!

> >

> > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

>

>

 

 

 

 

_______________________________

 

Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!

http://vote.

[Guest guest]

Personally I believe the Roman Catholic Church is beyond redemption,

no amount of "affirmative action" in the church hierarchy is ever

going to counter-balance the inate misogyny that is promoted as

scripture. I don't disagree with your other points; though, I'm not

sure how you provide for women-only sacred spaces for recovery or

spiritual development (without male critique), yet still engage a

supportive male population. Either a space is off limits or it's

not. I guess at the end of the day, while I wouldn't deny women the

right to carve out a private space, what I'm looking for is a space

that I can participate. Which points directly back to my original

query about Dianic belief systems being a code word, if you will, for

men not welcome.

 

 

, "Ellen McGowen"

<ellen.mcgowen@w...> wrote:

> I do not think men are "the problem". I think the process of

convincing

> little boys and adult men that they cannot be nurturers is the

problem.

> [Genevieve Vaughan (www.gift-economy.com) gives that process the

apt name

> "masculation".]

>

> I also do not think that devotion to the Divine Feminine should be

closed to

> men -- not at all. But as someone pointed out earlier, many women

in the

> Goddess movement are abuse survivors from male violence, sexual

abuse or

> psychological abuse and need spaces to heal. Or simply spaces to

develop

> themselves without male opinions impinging, limiting. This is why

> women-only spaces and groups were created by feminists in the

late '60s and

> the '70s. Women also need sacred spaces to develop themselves

spiritually

> without the voices of men critiquing their every effort.

>

> Given the millennia of male domination of religious hierarchy, I

think some

> "affirmative action" is badly overdue. That is obvious enough in

the case of

> the Roman Church. But as a feminist, I have to ask certain

questions about

> any religious tradition -- questions such as "Who writes the sacred

> literature?Who holds the purse-strings of the

organization?Who runs

> the rituals?"

>

> If the answer to every one of those questions turns out to be "men

do" then

> there is a problem, an imbalance of power. It does not matter

whether a

> Goddess is worshiped or a God. If a Goddess is only a mouthpiece

of people

> who despise and fear nurturance, or is a propagandist for some

elite's

> political agenda, then she is not much of an improvement over a

God, IMO.

>

> BB,

> Ellen

>

> -

> Dan W

>

> Tuesday, September 28, 2004 8:02 AM

> Re: 'Feminine' Does *Not* Mean Sensual

Rather Than

> Spiritual

>

>

> Excellent points, Ellen. However I would add that not just men,

but a very

> small and I would call unrepresentative minority of men have been

saying

> what God is and feminine is and is not (and classfiying to a large

degree

> women as specifically non-intellectual and non-spiritual). What is

needed

> IMHO is not necessarily a gender restricted religion, but a break

from the

> assumptions that have been mascerading as truth as you say for

millenia.

> Men *in general* are not the problem, we are every bit as capable of

> perceiving and accepting the female divine as anyone else.

>

> Ellen McGowen <ellen.mcgowen@w...> wrote:

> As Vaughan points out, in western

> patriarchal traditions, female "nurturing" is regarded as

an "instinct",

> thereby devaluing the creativity, intellectual effort,

> learning and sweatwork involved.

>

> At her workshop on Kali and Shakta Tantra, Chandra Alexandre

mentioned that

> Goddess traditions have not been politically

> liberating for women in India, and many Indian feminists often do

not care

> for the old Goddesses. This reminds me of

> progressive Catholic women who dislike the Marian tradition for

similar

> reasons.

>

> The problem is that men have been doing that far too long, saying

what

> "Goddess" means and what "feminine" means

> from their point of view for thousands of years. They seldom even

recognize

> that it *is* a point of view. They have come to think it is

> just "the Truth".

 

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Sponsor

>

Links

>

>

> /

>

>

>

>

>