Theos-Talk Archives (July 1998 Message tt00020)

I've always seen the celibacy issue as being an antiquated way of including
women or trying to create equality by removing sexuality as a component.
Utopian movements that advocated celibacy, like the Shakers, were founded by
women and/or had strong women followings.  Given that those were times
without dependable contraceptives, one of the few ways to free women from
the duties and burdens of child-rearing (not to mention the death risk posed
by pregnancy and chilbirth) was abstinance or celibacy.  Even in our modern
culture, birthing and raising children  binds a woman economically to a man
(if she accepts the responsibility. There are exceptions of course, but
statistically women who "go it alone" pay the price economically).  Feminism
and "equal sharing" of child rearing and household maintenance duties are
new things.  Celibacy made it easier to escape the bonds of child-rearing
and family demands.  It's also only been in the last 100 years or so that
unless a woman came from a wealthy family, her only hope of learning to read
or be educated was to seek admittance to a religious order.

Paul's note regarding The Gospel of Mary  and Kym's note about PMS brings up
the point about female sexuality and it's affect on male organizations.
There's the obvious issue of whether or not Mary Magdalene received
"special" initiations from Jesus that Peter and John didn't get (though even
the protestant account of the Transfiguration seems orgasmic). Generally, I
think women are more able to channel chthonic energies than men and the ebb
and flow of those energies are hard for men to deal with.  One of the
reasons many women find Wicca and neo-paganism attractive is that the
emphasis on the moon and earth cycles are verified by our own bodies, thus
it's easy to assimilate the "as above so below" rhythm.






Pam
pgiese@snd.softfarm.com

"Blessed are the cracked, for they shall let in the light..."

> From: "Kym Smith" <kymsmith@micron.net>
> Date: Tuesday, June 30, 1998 6:46 PM
> Subject: Courage, except in the face of women

>Dallas wrote:
>
>>The Buddha, for
>>example, or Jesus, as Men that succeeded in making their physical
>>envelope transparent to the inner SPIRIT (which all men share in)
>>are for us EXAMPLES which we respect.  They fearlessly exposd for
>>us to see a practical example of how a divineman ought to live
>>and speak.  As "immortals and as Spirit" we are all equals, but
>>some have achieved far more than we have done yet, and we (or I
>>at least) sense the difference and would consider it an honor to
>>be their devotee.
>
>As a woman, I do not feel "it an honor to be their devotee."  I can see how
>men would as most philosophies center around the potential of males.
>However, I believe that these holy "Men" - as you put it, Dallas - are
>lacking in some very basic life lessons.  Buddha said that if women became
>prominent in Buddhism, Buddhism would only last one thousand years.  Buddha
>resisted women being allowed "into the club."  HPB on at least one occasion
>mentioned how her being 'just a woman' was one of the reasons she would
>never be allowed completely "into the club."  Remember that famous line in
>Letters - "She does rave betimes."  Oh, please.
>
>Now, some men on this list may say "And damn right - women shouldn't be let
>in with their constant PMSing all the time."  Well, what else to expect
when
>some of these men on this list can't even begin to adopt new tasks such as
>using gender-inclusive language.  I wonder how someone is going to grasp a
>titantic Truth if the use of he/she frustrates them.  Apples and oranges,
>you say?  Not if Truth is Compassion.
>
>Many men and women may hold such holy "Men" in high honor - but I have a
>real hard time wondering just how "enlightened" someone can be if they got
>freaked out by the women who had the audacity of pulling up a chair and
>getting right comfy.
>
>
>Kym
>
>
>