Black belt Selena

[Guest guest]

, " selena230 "

<selena230 wrote:

 

Of Male Masters and " Naturally " Surrendered Females -

>

 

Just a word of caution on gendering the metaphysical: A quick look at

> how gender roles and dominant ideas about masculinity and

femininity

> vary across time and space is enough to show that there is very

little

> " nature " indeed in the way we construct and represent gender roles

> today (or in the past, for that sake). Gender (which is not the

same

> as sex) is a social and cultural construct. The claim that " women's

> nature is passive, submissive, receptive (etc.) " is the product of

an

> ideological constellation whose only purpose is to put women in

their

> place (usually the kitchen).

>

> Surrender is not a " natural " behavior for women. Rather, we learn

it

> the hard way, since the day we are born. If we are not good at

> surrendering by the time we are adults, we get punished in a

variety

> of ways--some of which are subtle and almost intangible (scorn,

> neglect, social pressure), others are pretty brutal (physical

> violence, denial of reproductive rights, rape, etc.).

>

> Historically, gender domination began about ten thousand years ago.

> Prior to that time, most hunter and gatherer societies had very

little

> in the way of gendered division of labor (yes, women hunted, and

> yes, men cooked and took care of kids). With the onset of

agriculture

> as a mode of production, however, the division of labor intensified

> along lines of gender, class, and ethnicity. As a matter of fact,

all

> of these social categories were conveniently devised to serve the

> purposes of dominant groups. Hence, the same social, economic, and

> political processes that led to gender inequality produced social

> stratification by class, ethnicity, and race, just to name a few.

Over

> the last few centuries, the spread of capitalism and Christianity

> through colonialism further intensified the " natural-ness " of

gender

> roles as we have them today in much of the world. Saying that it is

> " natural " for women to surrender and obey to men is equivalent to

> claiming that one race is " naturally " superior to others, or that

> certain nation-states have the right to invade and dominate others

> because they are more " civilized " . The fact that nowadays gender

> inequality is regarded as " natural " and more acceptable than other

> types of social injustice is very unfortunate, but it also speaks

to

> the power of ideology in numbing our minds to what is really going

> on at a deeper level.

>

> Please don't take me wrong: I am not saying that there are people

in

> this list who are willingly reproducing patriarchal domination. God

> forbid. The point is: ideology is so powerful because it works

below

> the level of consciousness, and is taken for granted by most. As a

> famous sociologist put it, ideology " goes without saying, because

it

> comes without saying. " Hence, a lot of people to pretty

> nefarious ideologies not because they are power-hungry or evil

> individuals, but rather because they do not question the status

quo.

> Others realize that, if they ask too many questions, they will be

> punished--so they give up the struggle and opt for the path of

least

> resistance instead. Generally speaking, we spiritual folks are so

> concerned with exploring other spheres of existence that we

> occasionally forget to keep in touch with the social, cultural, and

> political implications of life on the physical plane. As we do so,

we

> may overlook the extent to which these dymensions shape the way we

> conceptualize spiritual experience. Enlightened though we might

be, as

> physical beings we are still members of a society and a culture

after

> all (even though we might not like it). Hence, I hope my frankness

did

> not offend anyone's sensibility.

>

> From the perspective of the female tantrika (and born-again Hindu

> LOL!): In the complex constellation of beliefs and practices that

goes

> by the name of Hindu Tantra, the female energy Kundalini Shakti is

> invariably represented as fiercely active. Shiva, the male

principle,

> is passive. This is why much of tantric iconography depicts Kali

> (i.e., Shakti) as she dances wildly on Shiva's body. The latter

lies

> flat on the ground, in an unquestionably passive and receptive

> pose. Interesting, isn't it?

>

> Love, light, and laughter,

>

> Sel

>

> PS I am going to try and upload a tantric Shakti/Shiva pic in the

> Photos section.

>