Browsed by
Tag: gender

The Changing View of God’s Will – or Witches and Doctors and Priests, Oh My

The Changing View of God’s Will – or Witches and Doctors and Priests, Oh My

“You have no power here! Begone! – before someone drops a house on you too!”

Long, long ago there were healing women, women wise with the knowledge of herbs, of sound and smell and taste, of birthing and guidance and support. Their various mindsets are probably not ones that we can fully understand or inhabit today, although an undeniable hunger for their possible stories is evident in our fictions. History may be written by the winners, but speculative imagination is open to all.

Such women had an important role in small communities, until their role was re-interpreted. A strong patriarchal movement, armed with the authority of a monotheistic God, saw women with any sort of power as a threat. Their own stories cast women as inferior and sinful and subordinate to men. Women were no longer allowed to own their own land, and their bodies were to be thought of – and treated accordingly – as property. Powerful women, women with any sort of unapproved education, were to be disempowered: by making them seem subhuman (and/or superhuman), by cutting off ties to their kinship networks, and by casting doubts on their existential right to exist, such that communities would feel that it was wrong to “consort” with them. Women, and especially intelligent women, became the enemy (All our “wars” do the same thing – “othering” the human as less-than-human).

The outcast has power, too, of a sort, but after such events as the Inquisition and the infamous Witch Hunts, the burnings at the stake (how much worse than a crucifixion), the drownings of “water tests” and the like, much of the understanding and knowledge that might have been accessed later – through whatever methods of succession they might have had – was probably lost. Women seeking to reclaim the figure of the goddess, latter-day herbalists, Wiccans and witches, and all the overlapping seekers who blend them and other perspectives in their own attempts to balance the spirit, all have in common a yearning for the denied and nearly exterminated appreciation of the female principle, whatever that might look like. Because of this yearning, and the inherent oppositional and defensive position, there is sometimes a reversion to awkward and unfair gender binaries, but how can there be spiritual balance and integration and movement of all, even now, when male and female have been out of touch for so long and in such alienating ways?

I start with the ancient healing woman who became cast in the role of the witch because I don’t think we’ve come to terms with gender, knowledge, and healing. Our cures are poisons, our poisons are cures. It’s all in the amount, it’s all in discernment, it’s all in complexity. It’s hard to convey, and our stories are inadequate. Our mythos doesn’t function. Our logos is a weapon. And so, the vision of the ancient woman is a comfort to me. It carries things that cannot be conveyed otherwise, like music does. Like art.

Spiritual traditions, despite their wings of the horrible, all have a heart, no matter how it might be eclipsed, in the love and compassion that is the wellspring of all insight and communion. Every sacred book has its wisdom in this deep truth, no matter how its other pages may incite cruelty. It is the choice of each community and of each person to decide whether to take the paragraphs of the ancient libraries as an excuse for their dark side to oppress and to kill, or to read them as stories that illustrate the truth of the dangers of the human soul, in order to propel consciousness into a different space – the space of empathy, and discernment. Perhaps there’s more than one reason that you never hear the story from the point of view of the Canaanite.

Science and medicine have had moments of confrontation with religious communities – even when they have been members themselves. I think of Galileo, Mendel and Darwin – all of whom proposed understandings that seemed to undermine established teachings and were seen as a threat. On the other hand, the churches have had times of amazing institutional support – founding universities, building and supporting hospitals. The religious world is not monolithic of course, but eventually it seems that scientific discoveries are incorporated into religious understandings in some way – and the hanging sense that religious views don’t change is an illusion. The very existence of all the subgroups and diverse views among just the American protestant wing of the christian religion exemplify that, but even the more ancient religions include a spectrum of views, ranging across flavors militant, orthodox, literal, evangelist, conservative, scholarly, social-activist, meditative, welcoming. To me, the religious brand is less important than this kind of sub-grouping. From what I can tell, the fanatical haters are much the same across all religions, as are the compassionate lovers.

If God’s will is understood as something that is so fragile as to be easily undermined by human knowledge, things get dark. “The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity” as the poet W.B. Yeats succinctly put it. Those who believe they are representing God’s will seek to impose it as though it required their assistance. In this view, there is suspicion towards the cosmos, and paranoia about non-members.

If God’s will is understood more as “how it’s going to be” regardless of human decision, free will and action, then that is not threatened by much of anything, much less by better understanding our universe and our own niche within it. In this view, there is trust in the cosmos, and acceptance of both our sufferings and our various beings – whether in the form of women, of doctors – whether in extending the life of the aged, or by treating addiction or depression or a heart condition, or using birth control to better plan for thriving families. How do we know God’s will isn’t for humans to learn to make better decisions? Jesus was a healer. There is no reason in this perspective not to try, and no reason to throw away the gifts that we have been given.

If people believe both these at once, or in a syncopated rhythm, then odd things start to happen. They sometimes take on the role of God for others. Preachers and politicians believe that they speak for God. Doctors become arrogant, scientists mistake the model for the reality, communities project both good and evil onto the “what is” such that they cannot accept either the strengths or the weaknesses of science and medicine and religion and politics. Science becomes another “faith” and scientific method is considered discardable – or science becomes a perfect totality rather than a self-correcting and evolving set of theories (narratives that attempt to explain replicable experimental results). Religion inserts itself as scientific description and loses the deeper truths of its narratives. Some people become fearful and defensive, others violent. Lies become more acceptable. Truths lose the “scene” in which they have meaning, and are used as weapons.

H.L. Mencken describes the “inferior man” as one who (among other things) lives in fear: “The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear – fear of the unknown, the complex, and the inexplicable.” Such a man – or woman – will always fear anyone that that is perceived as different. He/she feels others must be dominated, controlled, and forced to be predictable, to follow commands, so that his/her own inferiority remains concealed, even from himself or herself. I was careful here to include both genders, but…

It’s especially disheartening to me that many women can’t see the various attempts to put women back in the box for what they are, but I have hope and confidence because of the many women (and men!) who observe injustice and who work, each in their own way, to be themselves and to encourage others. I think that despite our regressions here, we will continue to move ahead – onwards and upwards. We could have been much more. Maybe we still will be.

In some ways, it all goes back to how comfortable a community is with the idea that humans are allowed to explore knowledge, to ask questions, and to act on their current understandings. Some seem complacent about having knowledge of good and evil – or at least their internal definitions of such are rarely questioned – but the return of the repressed haunts them. Who do they have to control to maintain their community? Are women who use birth control witches? Sluts? Good way to rein them in, but go big! Shouldn’t insurance companies control them? Shouldn’t employers tightly define coverage?

But why should an employer define coverage for a person on “moral grounds”? What a nasty mess. First of all – the implicit ideology that it implies – that the worker has taken the previous role of the woman-as-property – is about the best evidence for the reality of the class war (and the rise of the dominionist theocrats) that I’ve seen. Beyond that, if you know anything about the extremes of non-intervention against a fixed idea of “God’s will,” you are aware of the many deaths resulting from refusing blood transfusions, and from childbirth, and from replacing medical treatment with prayer, and – in extreme cases – all of the injuries and deaths resulting from various pathologies centered on delusions about what God might want someone to do or not do (assuming for a moment that all claims about God are not delusional or at least inadequate). All armies claim that God is on their side, after all, don’t they? As George Carlin noted, someone has got to be wrong. Could it be – ALL of them?

Suppose your insurance company or business is owned by someone who thinks that your health issue is a punishment from God, and that in his/her/their judgment you don’t deserve treatment? Do you honestly believe this wouldn’t happen? We can vote with our feet by not working for such employers – if we’re in a position to do so – not everyone is. Over half this country is currently living in poverty, or very close to it. The “job creators” are still much more likely to skim the profits off the top and take them off to the Caymans, or Dubai, or to invest in global pursuits outside the American economy. In America, consumer rights across the board is the only fair position. If a religious community doesn’t want members of their flock to use science – however the subset of “wrong” medicine and science is currently defined, let them convince each to their own conscience. Sure, some will be condemned to an early and perhaps unjustified death, but at least then it was their own choice.

The roles of doctor and priest and priestess and healer and witch are intertwined. Each uses psychology. There are placebo effects. There is authority, and there is scapegoating. Sometimes overblown claims about power take hold, and abuses are legion. But each also draws on the will of the wounded, the will to live, the will to heal.

Perhaps each could help the other because of this, if they ever would. If healing has physical and spiritual aspects, and if psychology helps, and if there are different constellations of knowledge with overlapping themes and recurring narratives, maybe science can learn to tell better stories, maybe religious groups can embrace the totality of the human to a better spirit, maybe there can be better integration, better education, better cooperation, to promote the general welfare for the betterment of all.

But the power corruption is deep, deep, deep. I don’t forget the witches burning, the lynchings and the attempted genocides, especially when I read the comments of our contemporary brownshirts, fascists, and inquisitors, our bigots, our smug self-righteous, our haters.

I stand against the haters, in the way of the statue crying. It is almost impossibly sad. The utter, utter waste of it. The ignorance and greed and insecurity that it represents is such a huge loss to us all.

We’ve all come a long way, baby. Women and men, of all religions and races and kinds. But the backlash is severe.

In politics, the framing is always about our choice – but the choice is deeper than who we think might be best at representing our country’s values or our interests. The choice is really much more about who we choose to be – given our scientific knowledge, our spiritual path, our understanding of the human, our hopes for the future. Do we bother to seek a deeper understanding? Are we more comfortable with being told who we are and what God expects us to do, or not do, or do we see the acts of questioning about our meaning and constructing our character as life’s continuing project? Are we arrogant and oppressive and destructive, or are we working alone and together to try to make our communities, our nation, and our world a better place for thriving? For…all…the people.

When the healers and the knowers and the questioners become the enemy, it’s a dark dark place to live. That’s why I light a candle, and write, and smell the flowers, and commune with the trees – in hopes that a slight echo might come back across the ethereal plane to give me strength. Perhaps in turn my little spark might help to jump the gap in our country’s synapses, and echo forward to our daughters and sons of the future.

Think deeply, and just as hard as you can. Appreciate. Pay attention. Ask questions. Love.

Gender-based Cultural Humor

Gender-based Cultural Humor

Always a fount of information on the gender wars, my long-suffering friend Troy has made the two offerings below.

The fact that I first typed “font” is actually funnier to me. A “font” of information. Hee hee. I know that “font” can have a similiar meaning to “fount” but the latter is more precise. Besides, all I can think of is spurting bits of Arial (be kind in the comments – heh-heh). See what kind of sludge my mind enters after being exposed to this trash?

Enjoy these if you do, critique them if you don’t. I can see the humor – I can – but…. I’m trying to discourage further deliveries along this kind of subject line. Hear me, Troy? I like the pictures better – the birds, the bear, your studio, girls with tiaras… all of that is fine (hug).

“This has to be the funniest video I have ever seen.”


When the Wife Doesn’t Listen

Translating the Words of Men

“I’M GOING FISHING” Means: “I’m going to drink myself dangerously stupid, and stand by a stream with a stick in my hand, while the fish swim by in complete safety.”

“IT’S A GUY THING” Means: “There is no rational thought pattern connected with it, and you have no chance at all of making it logical.”

“CAN I HELP WITH DINNER?” Means: “Why isn’t dinner already on the table?”

“UH HUH,” “SURE, HONEY,” OR “YES, DEAR…” Means: Absolutely nothing. It’s a conditioned response.

“IT WOULD TAKE TOO LONG TO EXPLAIN” Means: “I have no idea how it works.”

“I WAS LISTENING TO YOU. IT’S JUST THAT I HAVE THINGS ON MY MIND.” Means: “I was wondering if that redhead over there is wearing a bra.”

“TAKE A BREAK HONEY, YOU ARE WORKING TOO HARD.” Means: “I can’t hear the game over the vacuum cleaner.”

“THAT’S INTERESTING, DEAR.” Means: “Are you still talking?”

“YOU KNOW HOW BAD MY MEMORY IS.” Means: “I remember the theme song to ‘F Troop’, the address of the first girl I ever kissed, and the vehicle identification numbers of every car I’ve ever owned, but I forgot your birthday.”

“I WAS JUST THINKING ABOUT YOU, AND GOT YOU THESE ROSES.” Means: “The girl selling them on the corner was a real babe.”

“OH, DON’T FUSS, I JUST CUT MYSELF, IT’S NO BIG DEAL.” Means: “I have actually severed a limb, but will bleed to death before I admit that I am hurt.”

“HEY, I’VE GOT MY REASONS FOR WHAT I’M DOING.” Means: “And I sure hope I think of some pretty good reasons soon.”

“I CAN’T FIND IT.” Means: “It didn’t fall into my outstretched hands, so I’m completely clueless.”

“WHAT DID I DO THIS TIME?” Means: “What did you catch me at?”

“I HEARD YOU.” Means: “I haven’t the foggiest clue what you just said, and am hoping desperately that I can fake it well enough so that you don’t spend the next 3 days yelling at me.”

“YOU KNOW I COULD NEVER LOVE ANYONE ELSE” Means: “I am used to the way you yell at me, and realize it could be worse.”

“YOU LOOK TERRIFIC.” Means: “”Please don’t try on one more outfit, I’m starving.”

“I’M NOT LOST. I KNOW EXACTLY WHERE WE ARE.” Means: “No one will ever see us alive again.”

Last Tickle Test – Gender Identity

Last Tickle Test – Gender Identity

I usually enjoy taking the tests at Tickle, but this is the last one I’ll do, I think. They have gotten too aggressive with the Focalex ads, requiring several pages of skipping before you can take the test. There’s even an ad when you’re done. Also, they don’t provide html to post the results.

I’m always fascinated by “what counts” as a masculine or feminine “trait.” It’s so culturally driven. And I often disagree.

I’m 53% masculine and 47% feminine.

When we compare your results with other women it shows that you are somewhat more masculine than average. What does it mean for a woman to be masculine? Masculinity in Western culture involves participation in physical activity and strong analytical skills. But masculinity is more than just liking sports and analyzing problems.

Of the four gender types identified (highly masculine, highly feminine, androgynous, sex-role transcendent), I am classified as androgynous:

Androgynous: People who are androgynous have both strong masculine and strong feminine qualities. Androgynous people tend to be both action and people oriented, and are usually able to successfully take on a diverse range of roles that cross gender-role boundaries.

There were interesting charts showing norms for men and women on a variety of qualities (and where I plot on those) but since they were using scripting there really isn’t any way to display those here (at least not without spending WAYYY too much time on it).

Here’s the verbiage, though:

Traditional Masculine Qualities:

Sports Fan: You scored in the mid-range of liking sports compared to other people. You’re physically active, but it’s not an obsession. You may be more of a spectator than a player when it comes to sports. When making choices about how you spend your time, there are occasions when you really want to be active and at other times you’d rather be more sedentary. You may get competitive at times, but it’s not a defining quality.

Decisive: You probably have no trouble making decisions. You’re someone who almost always has your wits about you. You are generally capable of dealing with difficult, high-pressure situations and handling the consequences of your actions. In fact, you may even seek out roles and situations that demand your sharp decision-making skills.

Leader: You are likely to have exceptionally strong leadership abilities. You tend to be a self-confident, goal-focused, trailblazer. Being successful in life is probably one of the most important things to you. You’re not likely to back away from an opportunity to take charge. You may, in fact, seek out settings in which you can play a leadership role.

Aggressive: You tend to be high in aggressiveness. When you’re provoked you’re most likely to respond in attack mode. You may not be the one to escalate a conflict, but you’re likely to return insult for insult and blow for blow. You probably have a very short temper. You tend to be someone who feels strongly about protecting and defending what’s yours, whether that’s property or people.

Analytical: You are highly analytical. Complex thinking and problem solving are activities in which you are likely to engage regularly. You tend to enjoy stretching your mental muscles. When someone asks you an explanatory question, such as “How does that work?” you may be prone to give a more detailed answer than necessary. You are generally drawn to roles and situations in which you can exercise your strong analytical skills.

Principled Individualist: You are unique. You probably feel that you are very much your own person with a strong sense of self, and that there is no one quite like you. You are likely to have a clear sense of right and wrong, and seek to conduct yourself in a way that lives up to your own high standards. You have an internal ethical system and living according to your own rules is what matters most to you. Your approach to life tends to be positive and hopeful.

Traditional Feminine Qualities:

Cheerful: No one is likely to describe you as perky. You can even be a bit cynical or pessimistic. You don’t tend to be someone who simply paints a smile on your face even if you’re feeling down. When you’re happy, you’re happy, and when you’re not, you’re not. Other people who are extremely perky, peppy and sunny may even annoy you.

Compassionate: You are moderately caring and compassionate. You have a warm and tenderhearted side, but you may be more likely to show it to those who are closest to you and not just to everyone. You’re comfortable expressing affection in certain situations. You might be moved to help every person who needs it, but you’re also aware of the practical limitations of trying to fix every wrong in the world. While you sometimes find yourself in care-giving situations, you probably don’t actively seek them out.

Gentle: You are not especially gentle. You tend more toward energy, power and intensity in your demeanor. When you get angry or frustrated, you tend to express it. You’re not likely to want to quickly smooth things over or just turn the other cheek. You may find that quiet, calm, tranquil settings can be boring. Although you’re not opposed to peacefulness, you thrive on a certain amount of stress. You may even pride yourself on being a little rough around the edges.

Understanding: You understand people fairly well. You are able to see things from others’ perspectives and can usually empathize with people’s problems and struggles. You may have some intuition and insight into people’s motivations and goals. It’s likely that you have a friend or two that turn to you when they have problems. You might have toyed with the idea of being a therapist. It’s likely that you find yourself in roles and situations that call upon your skill in understanding people, even if you don’t actively seek these out.

Timid: You are not very timid. In a crowd you tend to stand out. You generally enjoy attention from others and may even seek the spotlight. You’re fairly self-confident and are not easily embarrassed. In a group setting you can usually jump right into the conversation. You can be very social and outgoing. When you first meet someone your self-confidence helps you feel comfortable and you’re probably good at making the other person feel comfortable as well. When you feel strongly about something, whether it’s positive or negative, you tend to have little trouble expressing your feelings.

Trusting: You are not very trusting. When someone tells you something you may require independent verification before you really believe it. You tend to be very good at telling when someone is lying to you, and it is probably rare for someone to deceive you for any length of time. You’re not looking for the worst in people, but you tend to approach life with the belief that things aren’t always exactly the way they appear on the surface. You tend to possess a healthy sense of skepticism.

Tickle Statement:

Tickle’s own research used the established measures of psychology as a starting point and we conducted our own studies to discover what masculinity and femininity mean today. It may be somewhat surprising to learn that society’s beliefs about masculinity and femininity haven’t changed all that much. What has changed is that in current times more people are scoring as androgynous and sex-role transcendent. This area continues to be an active research topic in psychology because gender identity can affect how we think, behave, and communicate.

Since I work for a company that specializes in workforce assessments and strategies, I can’t help but notice that these gender traits might be better described in the neutral language of DISC behavioral styles. For example, the power components (aggressive/timid) are about the use of force, the D quadrant. I’ve seen plenty of High D women and Low D men.

The whole sports thing has nothing to do with gender at all – and they are really talking about all kinds of different things – loyalty to a team and vicarious adrenaline and war games and exercise and health…. A dedicated ballet dancer is then…what?…super masculine?

Some of the categories are really more about prioritizing one’s passions and values – So, a kind compassionate man would be…..super feminine?

And they leave things out, such as communication styles (even though they give examples, such as Deborah Tanner).

On “trusting” – does this mean trusting of people? Which people? All people? Family, friends, strangers, in-group, out-group, authority figures? Does it also include trust with regard to tasks and objects – lower standards with regard to information, products, methods?

This just isn’t a good way to organize. I really wonder about where they got the “norms” too.

So, these things are fun, but I don’t really see that a breakdown in terms of gender makes any sense.

My own opinion is that there are behaviors and values that are socially coded as “masculine” or “feminine.” These break down too – for example, along class lines.

I don’t really think that there is any such thing (not in terms of behavior and personality), as an inherently “gender-specific trait.”

And of course none of this has anything to do with gender “identity,” which is a recent social construct that plays most often in debates and arguments about sexuality, not gender.

Reading Michael Jackson

Reading Michael Jackson

An Ex-JW’s Take

Ok, so here’s my opinion on the Michael Jackson story, offered from no particular professional perspective, but only from my observations of him over the years and my intuitive understandings of the strange psychology of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Michael Jackson does need psychological help. He needs guidance to navigate through the fantasy of magical princehood into some sort of functional adult status. But I do not believe that he is a predator, nor do I believe that he is (at least by any conventional profile) a pedophile.

The most sensitive and talented child in an authoritarian and ambitious JW family, his fame and wealth gave him both adoration and escape. Like an artificial castrato, when he reached a certain age, he became less able to access that escape and tried to reinvent himself. The black glitter glove, like a magic wand, became an early sign of his independence and will, but also reflected a darker side of his psyche. He wanted everything he touched to turn to gold, but he also wanted … protection.

He is, essentially, still a child. He wants to be loved and adored. He is narcissistic. He is playful – all of that is his private world. He is horribly hurt when he is not understood, but he doesn’t have enough touchstones in reality to understand why others can’t understand him, nor to clearly define for himself where the fantasies end and reality begins.

He is a gentle soul – a sweet soul who plays at being bad with a kind of innocence that has always touched me. He really seems to believe that in bringing magic to others’ lives he can avoid becoming a pied piper. If he had left it at the music, it would have been possible – but he wanted to make his reality into his fantasy. His wealth allowed him to do that to some extent, but his world needed a population of children to be complete.

Clearly he has tried to retain the outer image of his youth to match the way he seems to feel inside. He would do almost anything to avoid looking too much like his abusive father, too much like a black man, too much like a man at all. He has wanted the freedom of infinite possibility, without developing mature faith.

The results are plain on his clownish face, but it is a tragic story. He would actually have been quite handsome. If he does have the skin disease, it would be better not to emphasize it with the makeup – his own face has become a mask. His eyes still make me cry.

I have wished for many years to talk with Michael – there is something inside of me that yearns to help heal him.

When I was in high school, I was Hodel in the drama club’s production of Fiddler on the Roof. I got into a little bit of trouble over that, since my JW elders considered it to be exhibitionist, and – at the same time that the Thriller video was coming out – there was some discussion of the appropriateness of participating in the dream sequence that contained “a depiction of the supernatural.” That the whole dream sequence was an elaborate story about a false visitation from a dead wife, told to release Tevye’s oldest daughter from a planned wedding, was irrelevant.

Michael Jackson’s ghoulish face in the video made me laugh, and gave me courage to try all kinds of new roles – and it was also the Thriller video that started his eventual distancing from the JWs. The metamorphosis sequences of spectrums of transposed race and gender – those amazing faces in the later video – were perhaps the best example of morphing technology of the day. And again, I felt he was trying to transcend identity expectations and limitations. It could have been a story of liberation.

And yet somehow it wasn’t. It broke down. Perhaps he’s just in the closet. Perhaps he’s ADHD. Perhaps he just didn’t get enough education. Perhaps it is a version of self-loathing, to try to make everything, absolutely everything, different. Perhaps he has delusions of grandeur. I don’t pretend to understand.

Michael Jackson is one of a kind. I feel so sorry for him.

If he is indeed guilty of something like rape, he should (of course!) be brought to justice. But it’s probably not that simple. I suspect that there is some kind of truth in the charges. Perhaps he was too close physically to some of his child friends and made some of them uncomfortable, especially if they were warned about him – children don’t miss much. Or perhaps this is a way of distancing the child from Michael.

The presence of children is what makes him feel safe – but maybe precisely because of that, he may not really have understand them as true others – maybe to him they are more like pets. It does seem a bit that way with his own children (who I hope will be cared for by some of Michael’s siblings). Or maybe it just started to get too weird for the children themselves to be so near such a charismatic child trapped in an adult’s body. Or perhaps, to be most charitable toward Michael, he’s not really guilty of anything except being a temptation for financial gain by unscrupulous parents.

Normally, I would be offended to see a story such as this take precedence over discussions of the energy bill, medicare, or even the reaction of the British populace to Bush’s visit – but Michael Jackson’s story continues to haunt me. Hang in there, Michael.