A Queen is Queen by right of birth, a King is King by right of marriage. - said of the Pharaohs of Egypt.

This is something that I have been thinking for some time, but it has only really formed into words (and a point) recently, and I will blunder a bit here as I’m still not sure quite where to start.

Recently, I got to talking to a member of my family who is a Freemason. Obviously we are limited about what we could talk about, but I had to smile that women's magic tends to be of the earth and the land whereas men are always wanting to build things

Freemasonry, like any other well-established Occult order, is highly patriarchal. There are Woman's Masonic Guilds, but they do not ever really make the upper echelons of Masonic knowledge and power, more they are humoured.

Similarly, the Golden Dawn, the Knights Templar and the Society of Inner Light (granted, founded by a woman, but a woman who was indoctrinated into the male Occult systems and thinking and transferred much of that). I am not saying that within these orders there have not been strong women, of course there have, but what I am saying is that the order itself is both patriarchal and paternalistic towards women and women have long been discouraged and thwarted from achieving the highest levels of knowledge.

Now, this is not a rant about the inequalities of occult orders. It is merely a point from which to start and I am not about to launch into a tirade about women being accepted on an equal footing in such orders and holding the power. Not my bag.

The route I want to take is that, through thousands of years, a body of esoteric knowledge has been passed down and preserved through the efforts of these groups (specifically the Masons more than any other). Along with that goes the ethics, the brotherhood and the rights of passage.

It is a good thing that this exists. There have been many organisations who have been sublime at collecting resources, encouraging ethics and preserving knowledge and ancient practices. Many great men have attested to this.

However, the other half of the equation is missing.

Take Ayres Rock for example. This is one of the greatest ritual sites in the world, not just in sheer magnitude but in the bringing together of both sides of the equation to form a whole.

One side of Ayres Rock is for the men. Climbing Ayres Rock was a right of passage for boys to become men. Women did not walk that road.

On the other side of that rock are deep, beautiful caves. This is the domain of woman, where their rights of passage were performed. Men do not go there.

They both come together at the same watering hole to drink.

And this is where we face the problem.

Although the brotherhood of man has crumbled and lies is a pretty beaten state, full of emasculated, confused blokes, war victims of the 80's money-go-get society and the feminist revolution, there are still some pockets of patriarchal lineage that still exist. Sorry guys, not that that's much comfort really.

However, spiritually, the Sisterhood of women was slapped down a long time back. Our inheritance was left to the individual: what the mother chose to tell the daughter, if she knew it herself.

Although Christianity disinherited us all of a spiritual inheritance, it took men as the favoured child. It gave him the sword and the purse full of money and said 'off you go my lads', whereas to the woman it gave the guilt, the blame, the silent treatment and the dependency on man as she could not own her own land or her own money (or even her own children for the best part).

The naming of the child after it's father has again to be one of the most disempowering of ideas. Would the persecution of women out of wedlock have been as bad, I wonder, had they kept the tradition of the child being named after it's mother as it was in Scotland until much more recently, and still is in some cultures? After all, the woman is the one parent you can be certain of.

I know that today there is a much greater presence of the feminine in paganism and women are usually on an equal footing with men, but there is also a very strong pull toward either mixed-gender groups or solitary paths. Solitary paths are focused on the one person's development and understanding, they are not larger than that one, whereas a group has the potential to become more than it's constituent parts. Yet a mixed-gender group (although I do enjoy them and don't argue that they have their place), when that is the only option, can be emasculating to men and restrictive for women. Both need their own sacred time and space.

I'm not going to be derogatory by calling Masonry an 'old boy's club', but it does have that feel about it and I would not claim that a woman's group on an equal footing would wish for the same form; generally speaking, women and men have far different psyches on two fundamental issues: magic and death. Their methods of working, their objectives, their priorities and their judgements may be vastly different.

But I often wonder what it would be like to have such an order. One born from scratch, from the earth and through an unpretentious, altruistic desire to establish a firm feminine order of women's mysteries.

For my part, the disinheritance of all the women before me naturally disempowers me. Though I’m born in an age where I have seemingly the same rights and protections as men, I have missed out on certain spiritual rites. It was but a generation ago that a young woman sat on the toilet, looked between her legs and screamed herself into shock at seeing herself bleeding. The fear and the embarrassment nearly killing her. Now, young girls and boys sit giggling together as they learn about the hilarity of 'menstruation' and 'pregnancy'. In many respects, as the two sexes have come together, we have become far stronger than we have been in more than two thousand years, but we are also in danger of losing the traits which give each sex their definition.

I lost out on many rights of passage, like most men and women. But still, I know of more cunning men and male shamans (of which there are less than a handful, I could count them on one hand) than I’ve ever know wise women. I have been fortunate to know just such a man who has been such an inspiration, but there comes a time, and moreso now, that I have said 'I cannot go walking with you, I need a woman'. And there aren't any. I can't find one, he can't name one.*

This is not what I would want for my daughter, should I have one. I think there will still be some highly spiritual men walking for a while to come yet, and I think men do have a better ability to be on their own, to walk out into the wilderness and to lose themselves to Her and return a shaman than women have the ability to recognise it within themselves, because it's been taken from them.

Anyway, that's my meanderings and wouldn’t it be nice if to change something of that? Step forward the strong women of this world and carry your children forward, 'gainst the howling gale and the biting rain, show your son's their fathers and take your daughters home, to teach them of the blood rights and make each one a Queen, born to inherit the world and protect it to the end.

Best wishes,

Marion.

* Your Mother doesn't count, you need that distance.

I'm not going to argue with the fact that those of us over the age of 30 were raised in a patriarchal society, despite the fact that my mother was the strongest person in her marriage. Organisations like the Masons are a product of their time and traditions are often slow to change

However, my daughters are definitely in charge in their relationships so perhaps we've finally managed to turn it around. I just hope we haven't gone too far in the other direction. We need balance, not one gender in charge of the other - have we learnt nothing



Thankfully this is no longer the case. If you want your children to have your family name you can put it on the birth certificate

I like mixed gender groups and think that they work as well as same sex groups, if a little differently. Balance again



I really wish you didn't feel like this. You are woman - now ROAR!



I think the young have always found sex and it associated parts gigglesome and they probably always will



I couldn't agree more. You only have to look at the under twos to see the blatant differences. We then spend the rest of their lives trying to make them the same. It's mad



There are many, many strong women in paganism and I really hope that you find them. In fact, I'm going to count myself among them so you are acquainted with at least one of us



I think that it really comes down to our differences again. Women naturally crave the security of their home fire. Maybe it's because they're usually responsible for the raising of the children and they need to at least be able to rely upon the roof over their head so this takes precedence over roaming the wilderness finding their inner shaman



That's really nice but I would rather that there was a joint and equal inheritance

Julia

Hiya,

[quote] I just hope we haven't gone too far in the other direction. We need balance, not one gender in charge of the other - have we learnt nothing[/quote]

What you say about it going 'too far the other way' is a really important point. There's a lot of sickness between the sexes - a hell of a lot of good, but some sickness too. Women are not all coping with the career/family conundrum, men aren't sure of their roles either, there are a lot of emasculated men about that often feel they're being what women (their mothers, their girlfriends) want, and have told them to be, and are understandably wounded when they hit rejection from women wondering where all the cave men went. Women talk a lot about getting respect nowadays, but many women have little or no respect for men. Media packs a huge punch on it with all the stereotypes.

[quote]Organisations like the Masons are a product of their time and traditions are often slow to change[/quote]

Well, they are over 5,000 years old and for as long as people live in houses this will continue to be their time. But questionably it is something, as touched upon before, that should not change. The power is in what it is. I'm suggesting it's not the Guilds and the Orders that need to change, but a new counterbalance to arise of an intrinsically feminine nature. Wherever men and women choose to meet in the middle (oo-er missus) shouldn't change either, but there is not a stabile or integral counter-balance.

However, if men lose their masculinity, women have no case to build a teaching of their own. I remember the raucous when women started taking on men's clubs and saying it was sexist not to allow women in. Although one part of me screams indignation along with them and says 'I have the right to go wherever I like', another, probably slightly wiser side of me says 'hush up a minute luv, if they have no right to privacy then neither do we'. If men want to reside in male company, then why disallow them, because should women wish to do the same, they couldn't close the doors either and could you imagine a girl's night in talking about all the things women do with three or four old boys around the table? Conversation wouldn't right be the same there. The fact that women didn't have women's only clubs was the inequality, not the fact that they weren't allowed into the men's clubs.

[quote]The naming of the child after it's father has again to be one of the most disempowering of ideas...[/quote]
[quote]Thankfully this is no longer the case. If you want your children to have your family name you can put it on the birth certificate[/quote]

Technically, the child doesn't have to have the same surname as either of the parents, you could name it anything you wanted to. But on the whole it is still a cultural norm to name after the father unless you're a single mum. It is the traditional Christian thing to do, and after all, this is a Christian country

[quote]I like mixed gender groups and think that they work as well as same sex groups, if a little differently. Balance again[/quote]

I like mixed groups too, but I feel that they probably should fulfil an entirely different role. The mother and the father both talk to their children and they both bring them up, but there are certain things a girl goes to her mother to talk about (usually the plumbing) and certain things only the Dad is likely to tell his son about. And these things are usually fundamentally spiritually important moments and information. The way things are passed down will have an affect on that child's worldview that will be pretty profound. The parent in that case is the key to an awakening; a realisation. The very mythos of development is in their hands.

I should have entitled this the 'Disinheritance of the Sexes' actually, point taken.

But when the line of inheritance no longer exists then there is a real emptiness being passed down, a missing link. It's been going on for hundreds of years in Western society. The menarche, other then soliciting a quiet 'well done' from mother and a hot flush from dad, really doesn't mean much in common culture. Women are smacking computer screens at work with PMT because bleeding has little place in today’s go-go-go world, young lads smash in cars because no one ever made a man out of them, blokes become depressives bending over backwards for women who treat them like crap because they believe it's their own inadequacy as a male, children come out of the education system knowing maths, English, science but no social awareness.

When a couple spend too much time together they become co-dependent, they don't have a life outside of each other and they suffocate. What occurs for one couple in the microcosm can be applied to the sexes on the macrocosm. It isn't healthy. It breeds angst, anger and resentment. Women get violent, men become depressives - they need an outlet which allows time apart.

[quote]For my part, the disinheritance of all the women before me naturally disempowers me[/quote]
[quote]I really wish you didn't feel like this. You are woman - now ROAR![/quote]

Oh heck, not the Helen Reddy references please, please, I’ll do whatever you say, just not that

What I am saying is that I am a perfectly capable and strong woman in my own right, but baby, just think what I might have been with the weight of cultural mythos behind me.

[quote]Now, young girls and boys sit giggling together as they learn about the hilarity of 'menstruation' and 'pregnancy'[/quote]
[quote]I think the young have always found sex and it associated parts gigglesome and they probably always will[/quote]

That's true enough, you're right. I wasn't having a jive at kids laughing about sex, but the picture I was trying to draw was of a generation, for women, where first their mothers didn't tell them anything because it wasn't the done thing and then skip on a few decades to a generation where a woman can't get any privacy from. A lot of sex education has got more to do with the woman's bits than the blokes bits, as she's carrying all the match and dispatch equipment so whereas the boys get to sit through 10 minutes blushsome blunders of getting an erection and ejaculating, they get a full half-hours laugh at the girl growing a baby and eventually pushing one out. Boys get hair on their bits, girls not only cope with that but boobs too. A middle-ground would be nice and probably quite empowering. I bet you boys for one would take more on board if they weren’t busy looking around to see what the girls were thinking. I'm not suggesting single-sex schools, I think mixed is good, but again there needs to be a space for lads and lasses to develop their own sexual traits.

[quote]In many respects, as the two sexes have come together, we have become far stronger than we have been in more than two thousand years, but we are also in danger of losing the traits which give each sex their definition[/quote]
[quote]I couldn't agree more. You only have to look at the under twos to see the blatant differences. We then spend the rest of their lives trying to make them the same. It's mad[/quote]

Really? I didn't realise there was much difference at that age. Do tell!

[quote]...I need a woman'. And there aren't any. I can't find one, he can't name one[/quote]
[quote]There are many, many strong women in paganism and I really hope that you find them. In fact, I'm going to count myself among them so you are acquainted with at least one of us[/quote]

I can't quite explain it, but it doesn't quite work like that. I am a very strong woman myself, brought up by strong women all my life. But that doesn't make the kind of person I’m talking about. You won't believe me, but it is an incredibly rare quality; someone you would probably call an elder in any language. Sometimes, rarely, they are younger (this side of 50) but there are few. And they are usually men and they are usually bachelors. The women are usually widowed or unmarried, they do still exist but I’ve never met one. You can't call yourself one, it's just something you are.

Don't get me wrong, I am neither lacking in strength nor do I bare a weak worldview, but there are some milestones you cannot always breach alone, something in your head needs changing and something else has got to 'click' - that's what these people do. They make it an art form.

[quote]I think that it really comes down to our differences again. Women naturally crave the security of their home fire.[/quote]

Yes! And you know I never really believed that until recently. It's one of those above types who told me that and I laughed and said 'yeah, whatever'. And I must learn not to do that, like my mother, they're always proved right in the end, but sometimes you just have to make that journey yourself. It wasn't until deciding to end my long-term relationship that it seriously hit me and I understood.

I was never brought up to be a home bird, two very motivated parents who were fervent ambassadors for equality rights. The thought of being a home bird was just not a notion I was willing to embrace. 'Hah', I laughed, 'you don't know me - pah!'.

Now I’m chewing humble pie. Once the decision was made, what have a lay in bed crying about? What terrifies the sh!t out of me? Yup - leaving the house. It's absolutely run me through a goodn'. And it's an irrational, silly fear. I'm going to be fine, I know I’ll be fine. But ouch, that really hurts.

And it is that nesting instinct, or that 'secure borrow' feeling. It's your home. It's where you live. It's safety and it's familiarity. The reason I want to leave it is the hardest part to let go of.

[quote]Maybe it's because they're usually responsible for the raising of the children and they need to at least be able to rely upon the roof over their head so this takes precedence over roaming the wilderness finding their inner shaman[/quote]

Yes, I think so. I think that's got a lot to do with it (although on a point, I’m sorry and I know it's pedantic and probably a matter of semantics, but finding your 'inner shaman' and being a shaman I wouldn't class on a par). The shamans of Siberia were prodigiously women, but their culture supported that and often within such cultures it is the provision of a path for those who do not fit in that allows for the shaman to develop, rather than it being a neat Western career choice or mental illness - although I’d still love to go see a careers advisor and say 'hi mate, giz a job eh...', 'certainly madam, what sort of job had you in mind?'...'I wanna be a shaman.' It could be quite a boom industry as there's an increase in women and couples deciding not to have children

[quote]
That's really nice but I would rather that there was a joint and equal inheritance[/quote]

But equality doesn't mean all doing exactly the same thing (hence 'show your sons their fathers and take the girlies home') - I suppose you'd say 'everybody having the right to fulfil their potential', which does not mean 'all do the same thing', but employing the methods that each individual requires. Part of that fulfilment is a healthy cultural and spiritual inheritance, which as a tribe, we do not have here intact. So women having the sanctuary of female knowledge and men having that of men meaning that each sex attains it's full potential, which in turn gives a joint inheritance. I agree that the title of this should have been about the sexes rather than about women as it is on an entire cultural level that it's needed. I think I hit on that because women haven't had much ability to move and shape the spiritual norm of this country for some time. Not sure whether men have either but they've been closer to the top

Best wishes,

Marion.

my biggest beef with equality and women's rights is that in order to gain so called "equality" many women seem to think they have to dilute their feminism and become more "man like" in attitude.

Sometimes I think women have forgotten the innate power we naturally have and nothing gets on m wick more than women who look down on those who choose to be stay at home wives and mums, who take on the "traditional" role.

Equality should be about accepting the uniqueness of both sexes without either trying to emulate the other.

And to on a humourous note.. only a fool would mess with a witch..........AND a woman who cooks the dinner!

Oh and I agree about the emasculation of men. My heart bleeds sometimes for my partner, he can be so insecure because he had years of being told he was no good and yes he can be dominating, even dictorial at times... yet I recognise he's simply trying to assert himself.

And prehaps it's just my present condition.. but of late I have developed a new appreciation for the strength and protection a man can give... no longer do I look on those concepts as being sexist or chauvenistic... his sister calls him "Captain Caveman".. and you know what I love that part of his personality.. yes at times it's frustating, there are times we go loggerheads.. but at the end of the day we have a good balance and it works.

Somewhat ironically, it would seem that tribal peoples have the right idea, a distinct definition of the roles of the sexes, rites that celebrate coming of age etc and that allow young men to play out their natural agressive tendencies. It stuns me that more and more schools don't allow contact /competitive sports. Crazy! I do think some of the strife today is because people are confused regarding their roles.... and in deed too much emphasis has been put on those roles.... it should never have been about ripping apart the roles both sexes play, but rather emphasising that respect should be mutual AND both sexes should have a choice regarding the role they choose... it's become set. Look at how women who are able to stay at home are looked down upon...... I've read so many stories from young women becoming very irrate that because they are pregnant in their 20's that people assume it's a mistake, or that they aren't interested in having a career etc.. rather than it's a choice they have made.. after all it is possible to have children first and a career afterwards!

We have become too entrenched in our idea of what equal rights etc means.

It is about balance... and I don't think we are anywhere near it at the moment...

Gender roles are very interesting. Did you know that we do not see our gender as permanent and concrete until we are at least four years old, according to Piaget? How strange that it should become such a definitive concept in adulthood that we go so far as to oppress others based on their gender.

I used to have this great teacher when I was in secondary school. He was a Doctor of Theology and used to encourage me to think beyond the rather stale GCSE RE syllabus. During one of our extra-curricular chats he told me something that stuck with me ever since - that all patriarchal religions and societies are based one one thing. Men are afraid of women.

Think about it. They took a simple allegory from Hebrew midrash and twisted it so that instead of women being created independently we were jury-rigged from a piece of Adam's rib. And we were bad and wicked and they subjugated us and burned us and turned Goddesses into demons. Women were considered "unclean" at the most sacred times of our lives - when we menstruated, when we gave birth and when we married and stopped being maidens. What's that if not propaganda based on fear? Even during the resurgence of paganism, herb lore and "womens magic" was termed "Low Magic" and men's magic with its ceremonies and funny handshakes was "High Magic" and you got Aleister Crowley and his scarlet women and Gerald Gardener and "ye shall go naked in your rites". Ha!

"Imagine", said my teacher (though I'm paraphrasing) "what early man would have made of women. They bled but did not die. They produced babies and through the alchemy of their bodies, milk to feed them. They raised men and taught them about the world. They knew things. That's why the earliest representations of the divine were female, like the venus of Willendorf. Women were holy and holy is scary. Patriarchism came when men realised they had a part to play in fertility. then women became the passive dirt into which they planted their seed" I thought that was so brave of him to admit.

Thinair, my sister, if you feel disempowered because of the way men have treated women since time immemorial, I hope it gives you strength to know that they do it because they were ( and are?) afraid of us and the power we represent. Don't feel opressed by "the weight of cultural mythos", as you put it. Remember why that mythology came to pass. Hear the words of the goddess Isis. "I am all that was, that is and shall be. No mortal man has dared lift the veil that covers me".

Blessings,
Bethan

LOL, oh good, thought it was just me thinking this had happened Thing is, it's not always blokes getting beaten down by women, there's often something about upbringing whereby a bloke gets into that position and takes it in the first place. I often think when you head a bit further up norths - Yorkshire way and beyond, and also in rural areas, the men folk tend to get a bit more male. Northern blokes (and certainly not all!) often have a healthier assertion of being male. I'm not sure if it's a difference in upbringing or opportunity...we do tend to associate masculinity with 'working class' a lot. Not that that's the only aspect a woman wants, you've got to have intellect too, but it's a trait often missing in towney blokes. I think it's something that has slowly been happening over the centuries (I dread to think about men in powdered wigs, high heels and make-up...) and I’ll pick this up again in a minute...



Words you never thought you'd hear yourself say? I understand where you're coming from. There's nothing wrong in that in the same way there's nothing wrong with a woman wanting to stay home and bring up the kids. What do men typically associate with women? (keep it clean ) - the softness, the comfort, the support... because that's the gift of the sexes. It's a fundamental attraction. Doesn't have the same ring: 'I like my man, he's wet as a tissue but he lets me make all the decisions and I always get my way....' Boring.

Took me a long time to realise it too. There is some misguided association that 'manly man' and masculinity only equals violence and abuse and that a 'womanly woman' and femininity add up to weakness and subservience. The strength of both sexes is phenomenal but it's being slowly drained away and we're going to end up with a tribe of A-sexual. To be fair, if genetics keeps going the way it is, we won't need each other to reproduce much longer.



That's what I mean when I talk about a cultural heritage and mythos. It's what we're missing.



But be secure in their own sex, which largely comes from your parents but if developed by a culture and community as a whole.

Some faiths also have cults devoted to trans-gender and gay people. I think that's necessary too, drugs and alcohol abuse is rife among many young gay people because they don't fit in and they have few spiritually strong role-models to take them through it. It's important that that is given a place too as there are issues arising from being gay or trans-gender that can't be answered by a straight woman or man.





Best wishes,

Marion.

Just as I was typing that there was an excerpt on radio 4 about 'Love, Honour & Obey' about honour killings in the Muslim community. It went on to say that young Asian men are suffering a crisis because the values that their fathers brought from Pakistan just aren't working on the streets of Birmingham and such places.

Ironically, the same strict values of honour, chastity and morality are creating some very stunning women who are going on to excel in education and careers but then can't find a suitable man when it comes to marry as most of the lads have dropped out of school and become taxi drivers. So there's a marriage problem.

Best wishes,

Marion.

I'm amazed it's that early.





And they have a right to be. Female sexuality is the root of Kali Maat.

There was a word that was used in Haiti. This single word: Coiyóu, put simply, meant: 'woman's vulva on heat' and the women would chant it. It was a warning that one man explained as: 'If you give yourself up to a woman as much as she wants, she will kill you, wear you out...It means that she will drain you dry, devour you.'

Pretty much summarises it

The thing is, there's another view just as dangerous as fear, and that's 'idolatry'. You find this a lot in Muslim cultures as you used to (still do?) in Christianity. The woman is 'pure', unsullied, and in being so, she is the salvation of man. The Virgin Mary yadda yadda. When men place all their hope on that, they'll be sorely disappointed, which leads to rage and hatred (honour killing). And it's an unsustainable ideology because women are deeply sexual beings.



Now that's an interesting point indeed.



No, I don't feel oppressed, I feel lucky to be born in a free time for the sexes (compared to my mother's generation who couldn't go to work in trousers). It makes me sad that there is no cultural mythos passed down. We're missing it, it isn't there. And that's what I see as the root cause of the problems. What Very was saying about the tribal cultures, it's the stories and the worldview which has been gone from these lands for a very long time. It would be nice to see a it return.

But thank you for your words. This is a good conversation. I'm learning a lot

Best wishes,

Marion.

Would be very interesting to read a man's take on all this.

I do find it amusing that romance books do portray the classic man's man. The strong type, very masculine and sure of his own skin, I once started to write my own book in response, I felt agrieved that the women portrayed always give into the man, it's her knees that go weak, it's she who yearns for his touch etc... yet I also missed that he too was as captivated with her as she with him. Often the men in these books are what modern women would consider chavenistic.. yet, there must be something within women that yearns for this type of sterotype of a bloke.. afterall these books sell incredibly well!

For myself, I don't want to be equal to a man, it's a silly concept to my mind, how can we be equal? No, I want my worth as a woman to be accepted and respected. It's not a competition, it's not a race, it's about mutual respect and I feel very lucky to be born in an age where being a woman is not a disadvantage for the most part.

Respect, that is surely the crux of the matter? I kicked my husband out for the simple reason he was weak and I didnt respect him, I was in the ironical situation of being indpendent, the decison maker and the strong one in the relationship.. and I hated it. I wanted a man who would stand up to me, who would say no to me.. and if need be MAKE me listen to him, not with his fists.. but with the force of his personality and the respect I would feel for him.

Are men afraid of women? Do we really want them to be?

Are men afraid of women? I should think they have every right to be. I'm afraid of women and I'm one myself. All the female role models I remember were critical and excluding and had mean tempers. I yearn for the sisterhood of wise women which in theory should exist, but it's hard to be wise with bitchiness and backbiting infusing everything. I include myself amongst the bitches. I would like to think that this is not an inevitable part of the female psyche, only the result of oppression and therefore curable: but I do wonder.

How early gender differences manifest: well, look how soon little boys start to pick up sticks and make battle noises. And as soon as a girl can speak, she learns to say, 'You're not coming to MY party!'

Bitter & twisted - moi?

Yesteerday I was at Michelham Priory Medieval Weekend, watching men in armour fighting with each other. Amongst them was one woman, gamely wielding the weaponry and felling her opponents. Some of the men were shouting, 'Come on, Amy!' Behind me I heard a little girl tallking to her mother: 'Why's that man got a skirt on?'
'It's a lady.'
'Mummy, that lady knocked the man down. She won, didn't she? Look, I think she's winning again. She's good, isn't she?'
I thought to myself, how nice for the little girl to have a positive role model to watch. Then as the fighting continued, it became obvious that the men were letting Amy win every single time. Surely the little girl must notice this and wonder about it on some level?
And yet it was true chivalry: it was men being nice to the lady. I wonder if Amy got a bit fed up with being allowed to win all the time.

Yes, where are the men on this subject! Bloody typical, probably all gone down the pub

Or more likely read the title and decided it's some feminist clap-trap the likes of which they don't wish to get embroiled in.



It's that 'spark' isn't it. The meeting of manly man and womanly woman. Very few relationships seem to have it - a real deep attraction that manages to balance sexual attraction and mental equality, who can live together body and soul for the long run. It's usually one or the other - either sex is phenomenal but you wouldn't want to have a debate with him, or mentally he's your equal but the bedroom is a wash-out. There was a study recently claiming that money was the most important thing a woman looks for in a relationship. I can understand wanting some security (I’d rather enter a relationship as an earning equal rather than a dependent though) but surely all the money in the world isn't enough to buy off boredom or restlessness. In any relationship, the important thing should be that 'spark'?

I also read another piece of research that claimed that five years is the natural term for a relationship in the human, animalistic world. That after five years the bond weakens and that's when many couples experience real problems - supposedly the length of time to get together, get your leg over, pop a sprog and get it walking/talking. Weird one that. I'm highly suspicious of claims along those lines though, but I don't know I’m a full-on believer in monogamy being the natural human state either. There were claims that some women have naturally promiscuous tendencies whereas others don't display the same traits, they were trying to put this down to genetics. I think it's a mixture of nature and nurture...and probably age.



But in so being, you are equal to any man whose masculinity is accepted and respected. 'Equality' doesn't mean being the same, it means having the same right as anyone else to fulfil your potential (or fail ).



Seconded.



Just gave it up for the same reasons really. Had a wonderful few years, done some extraordinary things that I will never forget, but now it's run it's course. In all that time we've never once had a raised-voice argument. Instead it would get sulky and quiet and we'd tiptoe around each other. He came from a very different family background to me - the 2.4 one with a mum and dad who married in their teens and have always been together but, although there's fondness and love there, there's also a heap of boredom. He learned to associate manly manness with aggression and violence, hence the never raising your voice (I was brought up in a household where you shouted your piece ), control any forms of anger, always see both sides of the story. He's not a bad person at all, really honestly respect him for it and I know that whereas I’ve motivated him, he's grounded me at a time in my life where I really needed that. But it's not sustainable and we whereas we were first-grade at living together and being a team, it wasn't enough and there's aspects of both our characters we need to go off and explore now. So a happy ending, still a wonderful friendship, but not a marriage.

Very difficult balance.



Sometimes, possibly No, but there needs to be an excitement on both parts, otherwise it's a long time dead.

Best wishes,

Marion.

Ooooh, interesting angle...



Yes! Shared. Many have deep seated psychological issues and appear to have never had an orgasm. (sorry, cheap shot, but it's what you suspect of really anally retentive, bitchy women). I hate 80's-style career women who make it their business to develop an intimidating look and a patronising tone; who are all about everything and nothing worth knowing. But when I was in school in the '80s, we had some real hardened battle axes of elderly female teachers...

I used to get on much better with men than with women, still think I do on the whole, most of my close friends are male, however the older I’ve got the more that's evened out and I think since becoming more confident in myself, I’ve been more confident in dealing with other women. There is often a horrible competitive streak between women and insecurities run rife.



It's hard not to. I think we tend to revert to it either when threatened (and it's hard not to feel that with adverts and stereotypes as they are) but also, sadly, when we have a position of power over others (other women usually). I don't know. It's not always the case, but I’ve had a string of really, really useless female bosses who have been psychologically unhinged - one because she was having an affair with a married man, one because she thought she was the reincarnation of a Tibetan monk and another because she hated the fact I was younger than her. The one male boss I’ve had I got on swimmingly with for a year-and-a-half until he too turned into a nutter and an all-round evil b*st*rd (after losing half his staff and cheating on his wife). So although I’d like to proclaim that men are better bosses, I don't think I can honestly do that. Someone put it well the other day: 'I hate weak bosses', be they male or female. With confidence often comes kindness, when you're sure of who you are you often treat others with a lot more patience and honesty.

I think women, often career women, have a bit of a freak-out until they've had kids, simply because there's that constant 'tick, tick' going on from the moment you realise you're not a teenager anymore, through all your friends getting married, to finding the right person and going for it yourself. Plus the looming question of 'do I even want kids?'. A lot of women seem to grab onto the first man going and are terrified of letting go incase they don't find anyone else (some men do the same). Leads to a lot of young, bright women in relationships that aren't fulfilling, jobs that wear them out and not a lot of time to think about the meaning of life. Anyone'd become embittered. Not sure blokes get it much better, but the constant 'tick tick' is a real subconscious, psychological pressure.



Nature or nurture though?



Chivalry or just a bit embarrassing if she actually did floor them?

It's a tough one. I always beam at a man who holds the door for me, although I’ve held the door for men before, but I don't see why women get their knickers in a twist about a guy doing that or holding out a chair - I appreciate manners and kindness in anybody, male or female, and it's nice that such courtesies do still exist. So many ignorant young punks about who don't bother looking when they step through a door or step out of a shop straight into you etc. Reassures me when someone makes a polite gesture that it hasn't all gone to pot.

Best wishes,

Marion.

Granted, yet looking at modern career women and the attitude so many seem to adopt, it does feel that equality has come to mean denying one's feminism and embracing a more masculine attitude.

Interestingly, while waiting with my partner to see his solicitor, I picked up Vogue and began reading an article on Feminism. The writer was lamenting that "feminism" has come to mean a dirty word to many women and people in general. Many see it as being a hardline lesbian man hater, who will fell a man should he dare to open a door for her. Obviously, there were very fundamentalist feminists, I recall reading one book at Uni where the writer advoacted a matriaracial society in which men were treated like breeding cattle.... I think attitudes like that is when I began to loose my interest in "feminism". It is a shame that such a good cause that has won so many battles for women has become so negative in impression.

Yet at the same time that very cause has, in some ways, become a curse on women. Women these days are now expected to be superwomen; career, mother, wife, housekeeper.. yes there is a move for a modern man who will help around the house, take an active role in the childcare.... but that doesn't change that women are now more enslaved to their societal "duty" than ever before. Nor does it change the fact that despite the equal pay Act that women are often less well paid than men, particularly if they take part time positions AND an appalling number of women loose their jobs because they fall pregnant.

The solution? Not sure, but I suspect it will have something to do with women realising that feminism prehaps shouldn't have been about materialistic opportunities being available to women (although one can't argue being able to vote is materialistic of course) but rather the natural role of a woman be recognised and adequately recompensed. Mothers do not receive the societal recognitiion nor financial recognition they should... and I suspect as women continue to fight for fairer salaries which allow them to work parttime but still be an active mother, and adequate and affordable child care options.. it is that role that will become the focus and not the career woman.

Let me add, I'm not saying that women will stop being career women, or that choosing to be one is a bad thing.. what I'm saying, is we have now reached a position where women are expected to have careers and if she wishes to bear children to do it later, say in her 30's. Society expects this, and there is a sense that stay at home mum's or housewifes are considered lazy, are not contributing to the economy of the country... indeed, on one of the pregnancy boards I frequent one women actually argued this! She argued that women who refused to go back to work after the children attended school were selfish and lazy because they were not contributing to society or the economy!

It would seem the nurturing side of a women is now considered a dirty impulse that should not be overly indulged and the worth of a woman is her contribution to the economy.. and not the contribution she makes to the population, which surely is the more important of the two.

Just got back from the pub and I hear you ladies are having a discussion without the obvious age old wisdom of men to guide you. It'll come to no good you know.

( are you splitting your sides yet? )

I would like to say that for years I thought that what women wanted was to be respected and treated right and things done for them, like opening doors etc.

Which of course is true but its only half the story. They also want you to be a man?! Hmm well a quick check reveals that by accident of birth I am indeed a man.

Still not quite right there.

The problem was my angle of approach. The point at which I became successful with women was when I stopped trying to figure women out , said sod this, I am me, if they like me good . If they don't then sod 'em. Its about acceptance of who we are and feeling happy with ourselves. That brings the confidence to be yourself which is what I think you were describing in those romance novels which is the essence of attractiveness. In both sexes.

Took me till I was 30, but I got there eventually. My point is that we are all individuals. Male or female we are not all the same, we are not equal, we don't have to conform to any set gender roles if we don't want to. But sometimes we do because we find ourselves more comfortable playing a role.

Interesting. I feel that the essential difference between male and female energy is that males are mainly active, wanting to go out into the world and build empires and prove themselves, whereas females are good at focusing and concentrating. That is why, I am sure girls do better at academic studies than boys, as a rule. This is the reason why (bit contrivertial, this) why there are comparitively fewer women composers, writers and artists then men. Artists have to be a bit tortured, to go out there and be a bit pissed off with the world and show what they can do. Women are by enlarge more secure than men and so may feel less of a need for such "release"...anyway, back to the thread; my teacher was an occultist and her teacher was a man. There is no race or sex bar in genuine occultism, though popular "schools" and systems such as freemasons do reflect the male-dominated society, as do religions. All the more reason to be independent and individual, which I think Paganism is all about.

"Often the men in these books are what modern women would consider chavenistic.. yet, there must be something within women that yearns for this type of sterotype of a bloke.. afterall these books sell incredibly well!"

They may do to women who have the IQ of a plant!! I don't want or would not tolerate a chauvinistic man, either as a partner or as a friend! I'm not interested in anyone who puts their gender, sexuality or religion forward before their personality.
My ex husband had a accident at work, I had to take over in doing everything for the family, imagine my shock when he came back from his counselling session one day and hit me, his (male) counsellor had told him that he should 'Take me in hand, and be a man'. I told him I didn't want that kind of man to bring up my sons and threw him out. I divorced him later that year.

I think emasculation is the result of a weak personality not a weak man.

Very much so. And the belief of many hard-line feminists that being a house woman is such a terrible thing, rather than being happy at the fact we have choice. Although the myth of the lesbian man-hater is one strongly perpetuated by men who don't like feminisms as a concept. It's sometimes a derogatory term used by old boys who thing women should still be in the kitchen without a vote. Not many thankfully, but the odd few who will refer to it that way. It's quite a coup de grace by old-world men to divide and conquer - by making moderate women think that feminism is nothing but an irrational extremist sport, it stops people describing themselves as feminists and thus weakens the cause.

Don't hear much about masculanism though I wonder what men would fight for as a sex if they did get together like that. What do they perceive the inequalities to be for men in this day and age?



Do you think that awakening will happen en mass and change the feminist movement or do you think women will continue to disassociate themselves from feminism all together? It wasn't all materialistic though (as you also note) - there was the 'sexual revolution'.



Going to say something a bit controversial here (no like me at all ) but do you think the notion of 'equality' has created an unrealistic idea of an easy life? When we're all equal, everything will be better and life will be good? Whereas, before equality, life was not easy - men's work wasn't easy so why did women fight so hard to have a part in it? I'd say it was a matter of principle - to have choice. But back then men didn't have the choice to stay at home and raise the kids, they didn't have the choice to opt-out but neither did they fight for it. So now we've all got the choice to swap places, but life isn't any easier. It probably isn't that much more difficult than it used to be either, it's just different. Life is still a struggle.
Helping disabled people into work under the guise of 'equality' often doesn't end up making their lives any easier and sometimes not better either - it can expose them to more discrimination, stress and a upset than if they had continued at home. Of course everyone should have the option, but the notion of 'equality' is also being enforced on people - 'you must be equal and in order to be equal, you must do this, this and this'. The idea that women being equal at work simply means that they should be paid the same amount as men and, in return, take on exactly the same amount of stress as a man. A man at home also probably has an idea that it will be easier than work but often finds out it's incredibly exhausting. So what is the balance we are trying to hit here? Is it to make everyone the same or is it, if we had the guts to admit it, to live an easier life? And if it is, as it probably should be, the latter, why are we so far from the mark?

On a side-line, there's this article on modern life today.



Sad and money-oriented. Surely investing in the future generations is a bloody good contribution to the future stability of our country?

A friend of mine when I was back training as an interpreter was recounting the story of a local council meeting. Although people who work for the local authority have to be well educated, it's not a prerequisite for being an elected councillor. One female councillor stood up and gave a long, well thought out spiel on the right of single mothers to go back to work and the fact that they weren't getting enough support to do so.

The response of one dyed-in-the-wool old boy was to stand up and say 'well, that's all very well, but can your vibrator mow the lawn?'

You despair of a world such as this sometimes. I fail to see what right it is of one man or woman against another to say what they should or shouldn't be doing in such circumstances. Is it really the decision of women to stay at home and raise children that will cripple the economy of this country? Is it really the decision of single women to go back to work that is turning the nation into thugs? Is it any one person's responsibility to shoulder the blame?

Everybody take a step back. Such a vicious streak in people usually masks underlying insecurities and guilt; or plain ignorance.

Best wishes,

Marion.

- drat, is this the only smiley of physical violence we have?

Only joking toots



You're good. I think that's exactly right. Confidence (though not arrogance) is the greatest attraction.



Or because who we are just happens to fulfil one of those roles.

Right, shall we all go down the pub?

Marion.

Quote cabalistic that (or universal).

It's so difficult to separate stereotypes from what is real sometimes though. As an archetype I can see that, but on ground level, I also see women going out as builders of empires - Joan of Arc, Elizabeth I, the 80's businesswoman, whereas I also see a lot of blokes with focus and the ability to 'shape'. Whereas traditionally I would agree, is it the modern world that's brought this out in us, have we learned it from somewhere or was it something there all along that was repressed? What were the roles of men and women back in the age of the megaliths? Were we all warriors? Do you see it in primates?



Not sure about that one. Comparatively, possibly but of the classics that's not surprising because women simply didn't make it onto stage or into print. Men are usually still credited first. However, when we do, we do it with real clout - Wuthering Heights, Silvia Plath, Tracey Emin, Pina Bausch, Hillary Swank (Boy's Don't Cry) - when we do it, we do it to the full

I don't know what the statistics are, but the number of young women self-harming, taking drugs, committing suicide and coming down with depressive disorders is pretty high. I'd be interested to see some statistics in comparison with young blokes. The insecurities of women are many - how we look, how we act, whether we're attractive, sexual taboos, our social status. May be the same for men, but women do tend to talk about things more, men bottle them up. I don't know whether this removes a lot of the stress and helps us to cope better with difficult situations than the self-reliant male?

Best wishes,

Marion.

You are equal in that every person should have the right to be themself and to be allowed to do anything they want to/can do without the fact that some people have a bit between their legs and some dont.

Two millions years of evolution have made the males very strong physically but that doesnt mean the female is unequal. We all have talents and out there is always someone worse and better than you at something, regardless of sex, age or colour.

Equality, in my eyes is being treated the same and being given the same chances. And that goes for everyone.

Now i've been a bad girl and not read this thread all the way through - not through lack of interest, but because i was dying to write something myself - so many chords were struck reading this thread.

a)Very - i feel the same way about my fiance. His mother, a woman with a bad attitude towards men, treated her only son with derision and contempt and it has had long-lasting results. He is very sensitive, but also very strong. Luckily he had a good dad who was manly in the best ways in many ways and my other half has followed in his footsteps.
Having been brought up to be strong and independent and given an expensive education so I can be self-sufficient I have always tried to be fiercely independent, but as I relax more with my man, I find I love being looked after and protected. In return I do sundry small things for him on the domestic and support front and hope that everything equals out.

I was listening to 'Woman's Hour' on Radio 4 the other day and they were talking to two men about whether Woman's Hour was exclusionary to men ( article to be found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/02/2006_37_mon.shtml ). That was an interesting discussion for many reasons but one thing that bugged me was the guy who was against Woman's Hour ranting about how obsessed women were with 'their own plumbing'. I got so furious at him because he has no understanding of what is like to be so subservient to one's own body. PMT takes over your life for a week each month and, if you're unlucky, ovulation bothers you too. You worry about when it's going to start, will it stain your white trousers? Will it ruin that party because you have cramps? Will you get spots? Will it start? Why is it late? And there is a lot of shame and embarrassment when you start menstruating. I remember being *terrified* for about 4 years after my periods started, that it would arrive while I was at school and seep through my skirt and everyone would see - and I was at an all girls school. Even when you get older and learn to appreciate the positive as well as negative things about menstruation it is still a major part of your life and it made me so darned cross. Am I being OTT here or does anyone agree?

c)Been disabled for 6 years now. Finally accepting it may always affect me has allowed me to accept something I've always felt uncomfrotable about. I am going to have to be dependent on my husband financially and, sometimes, physically. In a way this is liberating. If I have children I want to be there for them and make home as nice as my mum did for me and my sis.
So I've been looking at jobs I can do part time and from home, to allow me to keep ym brain active and give me a bit of pocket money, but future hubby is going to have to be the breadwinner and I tghink he actually wants that. Wants to provide for me and our children. I'm lucky, but I feel, sometimes, as if I am betraying all the struggle my parents went to to educate me etc etc. CHildren should be taught that being a mother and housewife is ok if that's what you choose. I've always felt guilty for wanting that.

OK. Am knackered and have no idea if I made sense, but <shrugs> needed to vent.
xxxx
M

"The hand that rocks the cradle rules the earth"

Nature isn't a mother for nothing and with the best will in the world, no man can be a woman's equal until they can bear the babies.

Let men be content with thinking they are in charge and dominant - if it keeps them happy so be it. I for one will secretly smile whilst "rocking the cradle"

Indeed that's what I found every neck of the way. Thus most of my mates were men, from which I evolved the ground rule of never mixing friends and lovers. Quite frankly my view of gender is quite androgynous. If I ever wanted to know the inside story on anything I would have tea with the "queens" of Halifax (Nova Scotia) on Sundays. Indeed, they had the meat on everyone. Women, however, were always wrapped up in some emotional dilemma over some guy that was usually a complete loser in some way (yes, love is blind). Mind you, guys can fall into the same rut. Women are always telling me I don't know what love is, and when they try to define it, it still ends up sounding perfectly sexual (must be an inhibition of their's not to call this spade a spade). I prefer to indulge sexual relationships for what they are, and have always been able to make that distinction. Like marriages under such premises, these relationships last only so long as the "feeling" is there. Love is something for comradeship or companionship (symbiotic friendship in which two people seem a compliment of each other, i.e.: Holmes and Watson) . Thus alot of guys come to me for advice on coping with the expectations and desires of their female partners. Though there is all manner of possibilities in interpersonal relationships, it all comes down to one's personal inhibitions and aversions, the rest is chemistry!

As for patriarchy, you can blame King Solomon for that one (from what I know he was the progentor of Free Masonry- at least that's what they tell me)

May I recommend The Wise Wound by Penelope Shuttle.

Best wishes,

Marion.

well, there's a copy in the uni library, so I may have a look see. Did you listen to the article? What did you think?
x
M <a bit more coherent today>

I'm surprised the first male contributor left with his balls still attached

The guy talking about 'women instantly sharing a bond by being women' - but men not having that. That's crap LOL so many women feel threatened by other women and I’ve seen loads of men hit it off strait away down the pub because they're blokey blokes

I think the bloke knocking WH is a wingey little mite LOL, though I felt sorry for him when the other bloke said 'well, come on, men are b*st*rds' - I think they're both playing the extremes. I can see what the anti-WH guy's saying but I think he's got a really daft way of approaching it, you'd think WH was founded as a personal attack on him. I'm not a WH listener, but if he hates it so much, stop listening

Oh lordy. Just heard the man standing up for WH say 'but this programme gives an incite into what the world might be if women did have a much greater say about the world in which we live....' ermn....oh dear. Sorry, starts to sound like a debate from the 50's at that point, as if we don't have a say. Although he is right about politics being majority male, can't comment on the media.

Yeah, sorry, that guy fighting against WH sounds like a right prat. He's missed the point of WH totally. If it had been titled 'Men & Women's Hour' and only ever talked about women's issues then he'd have a point, but it's clearly titled 'WOMAN'S hour'... poor boy, must be tough for him.

I don't know. It's a tough one isn't it. Should men get to talk about women's issues (or in his case, dictate what women talk about ) and do women have the right to talk about men's issues? Do men have issues in the same way women feel they have?

Many feminist groups had a major downer on men marching for women's rights, which is really sad and not too smart - if you want something doing, you should get as many people involved to support it as possible. It's important to recognise that a vast number of blokes are all in favour of women's equality.

But then you bring in things like the abortion issue and I think I take a different stance on things. Probably don't want to say this as it tends to bring up major nerve endings for many people, but I would dearly wish every pro-lifer to be male, because then they haven't got a leg to stand on. It does make me feel quite ill when women take the extremist pro-lifer line - that's stark evidence that just being female does not create a bond of understanding between two people Yet men talking about abortion is a difficult issue too - I like men who are pro-choice because I’m pro-choice too LOL, but I also understand when they say that they should have some say in things - you'd hope all couples are mature enough to sit down and talk issues like that through. But that men like Bush should stand up and say 'ban abortions' makes me sick to my stomach. T!ts who can't see further than the end of their noses.

So men who choose to get involved in talking about women's issues are taking their life in their own hands half the time, but then we complain when they don't show an interest. And being a woman doesn't mean you always share a profound understanding of what your sexuality means to you. Tough call

I'm all for a Man's Hour - but isn't that what Grandstand was about? No, really, what would they talk about? Would it be the same sort of issues as WH but from a male perspective? Would the majority even want to listen? Is it just part of the psyche of women to debate things and analyse, do men wish to do that? Would a MH work?

Best wishes,

Marion.

Very interesting discussion.

I think concepts of masculine and feminine exist in us all as a spectrum, and in general (but not exclusively) women tend toward the feminine and men towards the masculine. I think it is those people who are naturally (or nurturally) a little further along this spectrum in the 'wrong' direction for their biological gender that run into problems because society tries to artificially 'force' them back in the 'right' direction. These people should be allowed to be 'masculine' women or 'feminine' men and there's nothing wrong in that, just as there's nothing wrong with men embracing their masculinity or women embracing their femininity.

I think it's interesting that women seem quite happy to bemoan the state of men these days as not being the perfect blend of sensitivity and manly strength, but I imagine I would run into trouble if I expressed views about what modern women 'should' be.

A perfect situation would be where we allow people to be as masculine or feminine as seems natural to them, without trying to change them to conform with societal views of what they should be like.


PS I might be arguing for a man's right to be feminine, but I am a very manly man. Grrr... Just thought I'd clear that up.

i am a man who firmly belives that our victorian fore fathers had it the right way women staying home to cook and clean, not having the vote, never speaking up.bloody feminists ruined it for men. ahhh the good old days

i am joking by the way i belive that we are all equal and should be treated that way, i said to my own girlfriend that she should stay home and not go to work she went to work on my poor little body (ouch) i learned my lessen never mess with feminists

I've been away, but now I'm back (Jack Torrence, "The Shining")

Thinair, this is the first time I've fully read your thoughts on a complex and emotive subject. Yours and others, notably Very's, is full of rich, deep insight, some of which only experience can be the source. Thank you for sharing them.

I did not know that Ularu had physical separate sides for distinct male and female domains. The disinheritance of women. You said you feel disempowered because of the generations of our womenfolk before you. Thank you Very for your kindness and truth for Thinair on this subject. What Very says is of course true, though it depends on time-scale and "cultural memory": before "western" Patriarchy took hold (and it was a gradual process), men and women were different (as of course they have always been) though neither seemed to have dominated the other. There is archaeological evidence for this. The preponderance of Patriarchy grew over a few hundreds of years, maybe more. This was 2 and a half, maybe 3 thousand years ago. Broadly speaking I'm refering to the Abrahamic religions of Islam, Judaism and Christianity, and the cultures and societies they evolved into. Since then, well, you know... We live with it as the cultural norm, unquestioned by larger society: 1 or at most 2 generations will find it difficult to return to the natural order of things: men and women different, serving different roles, but fulfilling equally complemetary roles.

So you say "disempowered by all before me" I say yes and no. Yes, it's the "west's" cultural norm, has been for a few thousand years, has only but recently been questioned in earnest in the last generation. But substantially NO! Exercise your choices in your life, as I exercise mine. You and I are different at the fundamental level of gender, but simply different, not one lording over the other. (Though society for some warped reason may favour otherwise one way or the other). This is my opinion.

It's the nature of things to go in cycles. What was before Patriarchy will come again, maybe is already at hand (Oh f*ck, do I sound like a prophet or wot!). I hate expediency, I dispise it in myself, I dispise it in others. The male trait, even role, of aggression: every male has it, if my friends or family are threatened I feel aggressive, I fought when my (ex-)partner and I were threatened. This is basic. The Western, generally "Christian" culture fights against another patriarchal culture - but for what? Survival? Or for the political gravy train? (And oil!). This is not basic, it is expediency, it serves other purposes. I pray that in the generations to come fighting will be for survival and not for profitless power, and the non-sensical consequences of a patriarchal type society gives way to a genuine reclamation of simple humanity - perhaps promotion of what we call feminine, and re-direction of what we might call masculine might precipitate this.

Ok, that's me done for tonight! Thanks to both of you Thinair and Very, I enjoyed your posts very much in this thread. Good night (nos da in Welsh!) I'm off to bed!

Bye!

i keep coming back to this thread wanting to make a comment. but being the nice guy i am (most of the time) and not wanting to the preverbial foot in it, im going to keep my thoughts to myself. but its nice to see some of you aren't into crucifying blokes for being blokes.

[quote=Thinair,Sep 10 2006, 10:33 AM]
Hiya,

[quote] I just hope we haven't gone too far in the other direction. We need balance, not one gender in charge of the other - have we learnt nothing[/quote]

What you say about it going 'too far the other way' is a really important point. There's a lot of sickness between the sexes - a hell of a lot of good, but some sickness too. Women are not all coping with the career/family conundrum, men aren't sure of their roles either, there are a lot of emasculated men about that often feel they're being what women (their mothers, their girlfriends) want, and have told them to be, and are understandably wounded when they hit rejection from women wondering where all the cave men went. Women talk a lot about getting respect nowadays, but many women have little or no respect for men. Media packs a huge punch on it with all the stereotypes.

[quote]Organisations like the Masons are a product of their time and traditions are often slow to change[/quote]

Well, they are over 5,000 years old and for as long as people live in houses this will continue to be their time. But questionably it is something, as touched upon before, that should not change. The power is in what it is. I'm suggesting it's not the Guilds and the Orders that need to change, but a new counterbalance to arise of an intrinsically feminine nature. Wherever men and women choose to meet in the middle (oo-er missus) shouldn't change either, but there is not a stabile or integral counter-balance.

However, if men lose their masculinity, women have no case to build a teaching of their own. I remember the raucous when women started taking on men's clubs and saying it was sexist not to allow women in. Although one part of me screams indignation along with them and says 'I have the right to go wherever I like', another, probably slightly wiser side of me says 'hush up a minute luv, if they have no right to privacy then neither do we'. If men want to reside in male company, then why disallow them, because should women wish to do the same, they couldn't close the doors either and could you imagine a girl's night in talking about all the things women do with three or four old boys around the table? Conversation wouldn't right be the same there. The fact that women didn't have women's only clubs was the inequality, not the fact that they weren't allowed into the men's clubs.

[quote]The naming of the child after it's father has again to be one of the most disempowering of ideas...[/quote]
[quote]Thankfully this is no longer the case. If you want your children to have your family name you can put it on the birth certificate[/quote]

Technically, the child doesn't have to have the same surname as either of the parents, you could name it anything you wanted to. But on the whole it is still a cultural norm to name after the father unless you're a single mum. It is the traditional Christian thing to do, and after all, this is a Christian country

[quote]I like mixed gender groups and think that they work as well as same sex groups, if a little differently. Balance again[/quote]

I like mixed groups too, but I feel that they probably should fulfil an entirely different role. The mother and the father both talk to their children and they both bring them up, but there are certain things a girl goes to her mother to talk about (usually the plumbing) and certain things only the Dad is likely to tell his son about. And these things are usually fundamentally spiritually important moments and information. The way things are passed down will have an affect on that child's worldview that will be pretty profound. The parent in that case is the key to an awakening; a realisation. The very mythos of development is in their hands.

I should have entitled this the 'Disinheritance of the Sexes' actually, point taken.

But when the line of inheritance no longer exists then there is a real emptiness being passed down, a missing link. It's been going on for hundreds of years in Western society. The menarche, other then soliciting a quiet 'well done' from mother and a hot flush from dad, really doesn't mean much in common culture. Women are smacking computer screens at work with PMT because bleeding has little place in today’s go-go-go world, young lads smash in cars because no one ever made a man out of them, blokes become depressives bending over backwards for women who treat them like crap because they believe it's their own inadequacy as a male, children come out of the education system knowing maths, English, science but no social awareness.

When a couple spend too much time together they become co-dependent, they don't have a life outside of each other and they suffocate. What occurs for one couple in the microcosm can be applied to the sexes on the macrocosm. It isn't healthy. It breeds angst, anger and resentment. Women get violent, men become depressives - they need an outlet which allows time apart.

[quote]For my part, the disinheritance of all the women before me naturally disempowers me[/quote]
[quote]I really wish you didn't feel like this. You are woman - now ROAR![/quote]

Oh heck, not the Helen Reddy references please, please, I’ll do whatever you say, just not that

What I am saying is that I am a perfectly capable and strong woman in my own right, but baby, just think what I might have been with the weight of cultural mythos behind me.

[quote]Now, young girls and boys sit giggling together as they learn about the hilarity of 'menstruation' and 'pregnancy'[/quote]
[quote]I think the young have always found sex and it associated parts gigglesome and they probably always will[/quote]

That's true enough, you're right. I wasn't having a jive at kids laughing about sex, but the picture I was trying to draw was of a generation, for women, where first their mothers didn't tell them anything because it wasn't the done thing and then skip on a few decades to a generation where a woman can't get any privacy from. A lot of sex education has got more to do with the woman's bits than the blokes bits, as she's carrying all the match and dispatch equipment so whereas the boys get to sit through 10 minutes blushsome blunders of getting an erection and ejaculating, they get a full half-hours laugh at the girl growing a baby and eventually pushing one out. Boys get hair on their bits, girls not only cope with that but boobs too. A middle-ground would be nice and probably quite empowering. I bet you boys for one would take more on board if they weren’t busy looking around to see what the girls were thinking. I'm not suggesting single-sex schools, I think mixed is good, but again there needs to be a space for lads and lasses to develop their own sexual traits.

[quote]In many respects, as the two sexes have come together, we have become far stronger than we have been in more than two thousand years, but we are also in danger of losing the traits which give each sex their definition[/quote]
[quote]I couldn't agree more. You only have to look at the under twos to see the blatant differences. We then spend the rest of their lives trying to make them the same. It's mad[/quote]

Really? I didn't realise there was much difference at that age. Do tell!

[quote]...I need a woman'. And there aren't any. I can't find one, he can't name one[/quote]
[quote]There are many, many strong women in paganism and I really hope that you find them. In fact, I'm going to count myself among them so you are acquainted with at least one of us[/quote]

I can't quite explain it, but it doesn't quite work like that. I am a very strong woman myself, brought up by strong women all my life. But that doesn't make the kind of person I’m talking about. You won't believe me, but it is an incredibly rare quality; someone you would probably call an elder in any language. Sometimes, rarely, they are younger (this side of 50) but there are few. And they are usually men and they are usually bachelors. The women are usually widowed or unmarried, they do still exist but I’ve never met one. You can't call yourself one, it's just something you are.

Don't get me wrong, I am neither lacking in strength nor do I bare a weak worldview, but there are some milestones you cannot always breach alone, something in your head needs changing and something else has got to 'click' - that's what these people do. They make it an art form.

[quote]I think that it really comes down to our differences again. Women naturally crave the security of their home fire.[/quote]

Yes! And you know I never really believed that until recently. It's one of those above types who told me that and I laughed and said 'yeah, whatever'. And I must learn not to do that, like my mother, they're always proved right in the end, but sometimes you just have to make that journey yourself. It wasn't until deciding to end my long-term relationship that it seriously hit me and I understood.

I was never brought up to be a home bird, two very motivated parents who were fervent ambassadors for equality rights. The thought of being a home bird was just not a notion I was willing to embrace. 'Hah', I laughed, 'you don't know me - pah!'.

Now I’m chewing humble pie. Once the decision was made, what have a lay in bed crying about? What terrifies the sh!t out of me? Yup - leaving the house. It's absolutely run me through a goodn'. And it's an irrational, silly fear. I'm going to be fine, I know I’ll be fine. But ouch, that really hurts.

And it is that nesting instinct, or that 'secure borrow' feeling. It's your home. It's where you live. It's safety and it's familiarity. The reason I want to leave it is the hardest part to let go of.

[quote]Maybe it's because they're usually responsible for the raising of the children and they need to at least be able to rely upon the roof over their head so this takes precedence over roaming the wilderness finding their inner shaman[/quote]

Yes, I think so. I think that's got a lot to do with it (although on a point, I’m sorry and I know it's pedantic and probably a matter of semantics, but finding your 'inner shaman' and being a shaman I wouldn't class on a par). The shamans of Siberia were prodigiously women, but their culture supported that and often within such cultures it is the provision of a path for those who do not fit in that allows for the shaman to develop, rather than it being a neat Western career choice or mental illness - although I’d still love to go see a careers advisor and say 'hi mate, giz a job eh...', 'certainly madam, what sort of job had you in mind?'...'I wanna be a shaman.' It could be quite a boom industry as there's an increase in women and couples deciding not to have children

[quote]
That's really nice but I would rather that there was a joint and equal inheritance[/quote]

But equality doesn't mean all doing exactly the same thing (hence 'show your sons their fathers and take the girlies home') - I suppose you'd say 'everybody having the right to fulfil their potential', which does not mean 'all do the same thing', but employing the methods that each individual requires. Part of that fulfilment is a healthy cultural and spiritual inheritance, which as a tribe, we do not have here intact. So women having the sanctuary of female knowledge and men having that of men meaning that each sex attains it's full potential, which in turn gives a joint inheritance. I agree that the title of this should have been about the sexes rather than about women as it is on an entire cultural level that it's needed. I think I hit on that because women haven't had much ability to move and shape the spiritual norm of this country for some time. Not sure whether men have either but they've been closer to the top

Best wishes,

Marion.

[/quote]
i ve read the whole thread.
the masons started in 1140 AD or CE kilwinning scotland.
as for shaping spiritual norm in my opinion has always been female