Wiccan_ism

Aren't you fed-up with garbage, full-of-shit sites where nobody actually communicates, such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and Twitter? Do you wish your old friends who've migrated to those sites would return to LiveJournal? The the_lj_revival community has been set up with that aim in mind, and you are invited to join it. If you are already on LiveJournal and still have a Facebook profile, and would like to see more people returning to LJ or setting up accounts here, we invite you to post a link to this community on your Facebook Timeline. If you would like to find out who is still using LiveJournal and make contact with those who are already here, you are invited to copy and paste the 'about me' questions on the profile page and post them with your answers to the community.

In his 1939 book Think and Grow Rich, Napoleon Hill describes how he created a group of "invisible counselors" within his mind who developed into independent characters, although he continued to regard them as "purely imaginary".

( His Account of What He DidCollapse )

Link: http://www.psitek.net/pages/PsiTek…

This is similar to how I make thoughtforms -- only it's not quite so literal with me, and I don't have a copy of Napoleon Bonaparte walking around in my head. Also, notice that all of Hill's soulbonds are male. Apparently he never thought of adopting Queen Elizabeth or Marie Curie. It's an interesting look at the culture of the time.

This really makes me uncomfortable, but I can't help but wonder if maybe I am overreacting.  Nothing in the article struck me as something that I could point to and say "Aha, Racism!".  However...

It seems to be a bunch of white Americans and Canadians (in other words NOT Europeans) who have *possible* genetic ties to people who lived in ancient Germanic cultures (in other words NOT their own culture), who are choosing to affiliate with each other because of that reason.  So basically, white people are choosing to affiliate because they have being white in common with each other.  It didn't state it explicitly in the article, but I am going to assume that POC would not be able to join, specifically because they are POC.  

Does that make sense?  Or am I overreacting in thinking that this is HIGHLY problematic?    


( Theodism: A Heathen Orthodox Approach To Germanic ReconstructionCollapse )

Check out this discussion over at pagan .  They are talking about the gender binary within Wicca, how it compares with other neopagan traditions, some historical context, etc.  I found it to be an interesting read.

I got curious about the word "cowan" and just finished a quick n' dirty internet search on the usage.  (If you care to see the results, behold my google-fu!)  A lot of the hits came back that it was used simply to designate non-Wiccans.  This contrasts sharply with my own experiences IRL where I almost always hear this word used in a derogatory manner.  Alternatives being "mundane", and more recently "muggle".  To give the benefit of the doubt, I usually hear muggle used tongue-in-cheek, but sometimes I'm not so sure.  (A post on the word "fluffy" may be in order.) 

It doesn't seem likely to me that the use of these words is inherently oppressive, considering Wicca's status as a minority religion.  I am still concerned with the introduction of elitism into the language.  I am also curious if other pagan faiths are having similar issues.

What are everybody's thoughts?    

 

I just joined pagan_icons to keep an eye out for a community icon. If you know of an icon that would be appropriate, feel free to make a suggestion!

I'm interested in expanding on something Wonderwiccan said in the last thread- "Objectification of women within the Pagan community seems to hide behind the excuse of Goddess worship."

It would be telling to look at male leaders who have promoted Goddess worship- Gerald Gardner, Tim/Otter/Oberon Zell (that guy changes his name every 5 yrs!) Frank Mclaren Adams- founder of Feraferia a tradition focussing on the worship of the Maiden- read about it in Drawing Down the Moon.
And can women objectify women?

A male friend of mine refers to his (poly)girlfriends as "goddesses" which they love, but it does bring the "Pedestal" idea up.

Also, the what roles goddesses imply- couldn't the emphasis on the Mother Goddess lead to an idea that women should all be mothers? Even the warrior goddesses sometimes get turned into D&D-like fantasy babes.
We must also remember that many ancient societies that worshipped goddess were actually quite sexist.

Here's where I'd like to challenge the guys. Neopaganism (with a large focus on female spirituality, goddess worshiping, etc) is over 60% female (if I remember correctly, Drawing Down the Moon lauded various statistics but they may need refreshing). I'd invite anyone to talk about their experiences with any expectation to be sexual or available or polyamarous if you are in a relationship.

"Nice Guys" is a really good feminism link I just picked up from feminist_rage. It made me reconsider sexism in neopaganism in a slightly new light.

A poster here has already challenged us on our acceptance of "traditional gender symbolism" which is probably the best critique of the Wiccan symbolism / theology that I have read in a while. So I'd like to poke at this a little more.

Soon after I discovered neopaganism "The Craft" hit and I was fairly ecstatic with the attention I got from my peers. The urge to flaunt my pagan-ness to attract girls presented itself. I credit my shift in attitude away from that with simply becoming a more mature person, but this attitude remains present in people I would otherwise think are more mature.

I know there *are* men involved the neopagan movement for the purpose of sex. I also know that I've felt the "nice guy complex" tug and I feel better having questioned some of my old motivations. Could there be a kind of "new-age nice guy" complex?

However... I'm a skeptic, but not a cynic... so is there something observable or testable that differentiates these motives: a man who wants to "get some" (malevolent intentions) vs a man who likes the pagan sex-positive, not guilted or shamed of sex, attitude (benign intentions). Obviously the first of those two would expect sex, but how would you know without confronting the individual or how can you be certain when the second case can be used to defend the more predatory motivation?

Does cultural appropriation seem to be a problem within the pagan community?
At what point does it stop being "eclectic" and start being cultural appropriation?

I would say it becomes cultural appropriation when people of said culture tell you to knock it off. But then, that means you wouldn't know you're doing it until you've already offended somebody. Which is generally something to be avoided, right? So I'm wondering, how do you tell, beforehand, where that line is?

I have been thinking about the idea of Self-Responsibility and the concept "Belief shapes Reality". These two concepts have popped up time and again in my own path. I believe they are somewhat popular among the Pagan crowd (correct me if I am wrong, please!) These concepts are powerful calls to awareness, I think. However, I see a lot of times that they are taught in an overly superficial way.

To simplify they way I have seen these concepts presented, the idea is that if something bad happens then it is SUPPOSED to happen, or it happened because YOU did or did not do something that resulted in a bad thing happening to you. I have an inkling that these concepts, as I have seen them taught, may be one of the possible reasons why Wicca might not be seen as attractive to POC. As a person with white priviledge, I can be reasonably assurred that when something bad happens to me, it is more than likely that it is because of something that I have control over. More importantly, I think it is a position of priveledge that believes that "bad things" are caused by a persons own bad behavior and not by some form of oppression. In other words, it promotes a "blame the victim" mentality.

My own understanding of the concepts stated in the first paragraph are not overly-simplified, at least in this way, and I can't speak for what specific traditions teach. What concerns me is that the way these ideas are presented in various books and other "public forums" is obviously (to me) not taking into consideration the ways that various forms of oppression manifest in people's lives.

Has anybody else noticed this, or am I just a nut out in leftfield somewhere? If I am somewhat on to something here, then this is definately something that can be "tweaked" to make the path more inclusive and understanding, right?