Your religion's "feminine principle" - debate the necessity of it's inclusion in religious teachings

[MysticSang'ha]

From Shekinah to Shakti - from Mary to Tara - from Isis to Kali.......we've heard every now and then about what is considered a "feminine principle" or POV of religious teachings and doctrine. I'm currently reading a couple of fantabulous books that nurture and support the feminine principle in Tibetan Buddhism that usually is described as the "dakini." And I'm discovering many esoteric and exoteric texts that were developed by and large by women who write eloquently and teach passionately without needing to be put through the male filter.

The two books I've been studying closely lately are Passionate Enlightenment by Miranda Shaw and Dakini's Warm Breath.... by Judith Simmer-Brown. I have plans on expanding my interests toward women's contributions in other traditions soon enough, though.

How important is it to emphasize the female POV in religious teachings? Does it provide balance to the masculine POV, or does it serve to confuse followers? Is it better to strive for androgyny and a genderless approach? Are the teachings and religious doctrine already considered genderless, and therefore women's religious studies are erroneous in it's assumptions of misogyny in religious institutions? Or are women's religious studies and POV's long overdue?

What say you?

 

[Ringer]

How important is it to emphasize the female POV in religious teachings? Does it provide balance to the masculine POV, or does it serve to confuse followers? Is it better to strive for androgyny and a genderless approach? Are the teachings and religious doctrine already considered genderless, and therefore women's religious studies are erroneous in it's assumptions of misogyny in religious institutions? Or are women's religious studies and POV's long overdue?

What say you?

Both male and female POV seems like the best approach. God has made both man and woman in his image so by concentrating on the masculine POV I feel that you aren't getting the full picture. a women's religious study would be very interesting, IMO. In my case, I'd like to hear more on the role women played in Christianity's infantile stages. Religion is all about people so I'm not sure how you can study religious doctrine with a genderless approach.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

How important is it to emphasize the female POV in religious teachings?

I think it is very important.

Does it provide balance to the masculine POV, or does it serve to confuse followers?

Balance

Is it better to strive for androgyny and a genderless approach?

No, this is a modern response to the Abrahamic tendency towards omitting or marginalizing women's POV.

Are the teachings and religious doctrine already considered genderless, and therefore women's religious studies are erroneous in it's assumptions of misogyny in religious institutions?

No.

Or are women's religious studies and POV's long overdue?

I think the return of women's religious studies and POV is long overdue. It is the Abrahamic religions that reduced women to spectators within their own religions and there has finally been some headway made in women's religious rights and roles in the Abrahamic religions although many fundamentalist wish to reverse that.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I agree with both of you, btw. I think that the introduction of the female POV in religion is long overdue, and I enjoy reading the contributions of women in how religion has been shaped and taught over time.

 

[Quagmire]

Psychologically, I think it's very important. As a kid my image of God was either as a well meaning but senile old man, or a stern faced (possibly sadistic) disciplinarian; watching our every move, waiting for us to screw up so he could slap us into oblivion.

When I left home and hit the road, ie, once I had nothing standing between me and naked Reality I ran into something else; I felt surrounded by infinity in ever direction--infinite space, infinite time, infinite possibilities---and I had the undeinable impression (I'd call it a revelation) that the Universe itself had a personality, and this personality was benevolent, and the image that popped into my head in association with it was undeinably feminine.

It was a vast improvement.

Since then I've developed an almost completely different image of the masculine aspect of God as well.

 

[sandandfoam]

I don't think that anything can be usefully seen from either a male or female pov because I don't think points of view split neatly along gender lines.
I think gender is just a shorthand way of categorizing people rather than a meaningful split in humanity.

 

[Darkwater]

Words from a Godess

You may write me down in history
With your bitter, twisted lies,
You may trod me in the very dirt
But still, like dust, I'll rise.

Does my sassiness upset you?
Why are you beset with gloom?
'Cause I walk like I've got oil wells
Pumping in my living room.

Just like moons and like suns,
With the certainty of tides,
Just like hopes springing high,
Still I'll rise.

Did you want to see me broken?
Bowed head and lowered eyes?
Shoulders falling down like teardrops.
Weakened by my soulful cries.

Does my haughtiness offend you?
Don't you take it awful hard
'Cause I laugh like I've got gold mines
Diggin' in my own back yard.
You may shoot me with your words,
You may cut me with your eyes,
You may kill me with your hatefulness,
But still, like air, I'll rise.

Does my sexiness upset you?
Does it come as a surprise
That I dance like I've got diamonds
At the meeting of my thighs?

Out of the huts of history's shame
I rise
Up from a past that's rooted in pain
I rise
I'm a black ocean, leaping and wide,
Welling and swelling I bear in the tide.

Leaving behind nights of terror and fear
I rise
Into a daybreak that's wondrously clear
I rise
Bringing the gifts that my ancestors gave,
I am the dream and the hope of the slave.
I rise

I rise
I rise.

Arise!Arise!Arise!

 

[Darkwater]

Cumi! Talitha cumi(aramic for-rise damsel arise-the Bible)

Well I have read no books upon the subject,although have come across male & female principals in the Astral.Most are really straightforward & easily understood as they take the form most pleasing to you,other times if you go to them it is really difficult to understand what went on so you carry the experience around with you in hope that someone may shed some light upon what you are describing.This is all the more rewarding when it comes off or comes together.

If you read a book you are reading someone elses experience,similarly if I tell you mine these are my experience.I always look for people talking about things which resonate with me & would do everything possible to help them understand stuff going on in their astral,which is a sign of things filtering through on this plane.

If they apear as same size as my astral appearance I talk to them Sekhmet,Hathor/our lady of eternal succour,Cybil/kybelle,my swan(?-constellation cygnus),Mata Kali(jai mata Kali),Ma Durga(before heading into the inky black realm of Mara),.....the Shekina has appeared as massive & I communicated very well with her as such,she has also appeared in same size form.Same as Freya of Nordic whom I carried out a healing upon up there,the gifts filtering through down here.

There are many more too,once you meet one figure in one pantheon you kinda know how to treat her in others.

Massive guys I met are Horus & Tyr(Nordic-old god,combination of a few new ones).

I treat all on the level,when massive they treat tou impartialy too,as your eye treats light being one good way of describing this(I have many, )

Sehkmet did the most for me,I am still trying to hold up my end of the bargain I made with her(in love).

I've done as much for the others as they have me.

As it happens in astral,it is like dreaming except vibrant colours which burn indellibly into your mind so as you never forget a single detail.

In great love,

Andy

oops,nearly forgot the Voidian principals....

 

[tomspug]

From Shekinah to Shakti - from Mary to Tara - from Isis to Kali.......we've heard every now and then about what is considered a "feminine principle" or POV of religious teachings and doctrine. I'm currently reading a couple of fantabulous books that nurture and support the feminine principle in Tibetan Buddhism that usually is described as the "dakini." And I'm discovering many esoteric and exoteric texts that were developed by and large by women who write eloquently and teach passionately without needing to be put through the male filter.

The two books I've been studying closely lately are Passionate Enlightenment by Miranda Shaw and Dakini's Warm Breath.... by Judith Simmer-Brown. I have plans on expanding my interests toward women's contributions in other traditions soon enough, though.

How important is it to emphasize the female POV in religious teachings? Does it provide balance to the masculine POV, or does it serve to confuse followers? Is it better to strive for androgyny and a genderless approach? Are the teachings and religious doctrine already considered genderless, and therefore women's religious studies are erroneous in it's assumptions of misogyny in religious institutions? Or are women's religious studies and POV's long overdue?

What say you?

In my opinion, the Bible has plenty of material from a female POV, although probably not as much as a modern woman would prefer, but then again, most of it isn't really written from a "male" POV, it's more of an objective POV that happened to be written by men.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

In my opinion, the Bible has plenty of material from a female POV, although probably not as much as a modern woman would prefer, but then again, most of it isn't really written from a "male" POV, it's more of an objective POV that happened to be written by men.

That's curious. How does one qualify that, Tom?

 

[Darkwater]

The manifestation of the female consciousness of Void and patroness of the Reaver caste is at once a teacher,a healer,a lover,and a mother to all who are of Void,and much more.

Many female principals are affiliated to her,maybe best preserved & treated being in the Indian Pantheon.

Of all the Pantheon lady Sehkmet is maybe the worst treated,following Patriachal societies being unable to accept how well regarded she was among the people.

 

[October]

Currently, I'd define myself as agnostic, leading towards atheism. However, I grew up in the Christian church and would like to comment about that. In my opinion, speaking primarily about mainstream Protestantism in America, it's not only paternalistic, it's woefully misogynist. Women in the two churches I attended were denied any opportunities to lead, including leading Bible studies and working as ushers, which were lay jobs given to lay men without any formal training that most regular attendants were perfectly capable of doing. When it came to the grudge work of preparing church suppers and picnics, cleaning the building, minding the children in the nursery, women were not only encouraged but expected to pick up the slack, but weren't allowed to do anything more meaningful or relevant even if typical "women's work" like cooking and childcare was foreign to them and teaching or mentoring wasn't. I'm aware that some denominations allow female ministers now and that's fabulous, but what I learned from my churches was that my talents were meaningless.

The sermons and the approach to explaining God were also androcentric. God was a father, undoubtedly male, with macho traits. Although it was often stressed to me that God wasn't a human being, the interpretation of God given was always only of a man. The male perspective was the only one offered as well. What I took away from Christianity was that women were chattle. They were supposed to be obedient servants to their male heads of house, and to keep their mouths shut in church even if they had something important or interesting to say. It made the religion irrelevant and God unapproachable, at least to me. I'm sure many women have had positive experiences with Christianity, and perhaps that is what works for most, but I feel the church misses out tremendously through this. A female perspective would be interesting and helpful. Occasionally I've seen booklets and such discussing the female characters from the Bible, but they are usually only used in women's groups, and the church body as a whole, including the men, never see the examples of the strong, useful women. That's a shame, it really is.

I have noticed an attitude among some Christian men too that relates fear or anger regarding strong women. I can't help but feel that is some of the reason why, in discussion and debates, Protestants often accuse Catholics of worshipping Mary -- simply because she is a valued woman with a very high place in the church, though not a god. It seems that when questions regarding feminism, gender equality and the like arise, it's often the Christian men (and occasionally women) who protest them the most. I think it's related to their church teachings and I think it's a grave insult to humankind and a loss to society.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

Although we Baha'is don't recognize a distinct male or female "point of view" to religion, the Equality of Men and Women is one of our central teachings!

Best,

Bruce

 

[Storm]

I don't know that my religion has a "feminine principle" anymore. I view God as entirely genderless.

I used to believe in a masculine and feminine principle as major aspects of God, but I've outgrown that view (not a value judgement). I do, however, refer to certain deity-like beliefs in the feminine as a nod to my neopagan roots.

 

[Darkwater]

Like nature's link to source energy?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I think it's interesting to note that most are finding the idea of a feminine principle as either extraneous in religious study or it's considered encompassing a healing power to it for the practitioner/follower.

Is it possible to see this paralleled in gender studies in humans? You can have on the one side a group that feels it is vital to study the contrasts in how XX's and XY's in their respective physiologies process information and/or cope with the environment he or she lives in. On the other hand, you can also have on the flip side of the coin that limiting study on human behavior to this dichotomy pushes out the simple fact that women and men, despite having different chromosomes, share in our humanity.

Another argument against studying at great length a feminine principle and how it contrasts to a masculine principle in religious studies is that "God" transcends gender. To attribute masculine or feminine qualities to a creator God is merely being anthropomorphistic (is that a word? ).

Perhaps what is important is discussing how misogyny has affected religious studies in cultures around the world, and not making attempts at merely trying to swing the pendulum from andocentric views on God to gynocentric views in order to make up for lost time. I don't know........

My argument for inclusions of the feminine principle is to challenge misogyny (or the mistaken notion that men in power have when attributing their religious interpretations on their followers and ignoring that these interpretations are ALL coming through a male filter). It is evident IMO that "Females" (not just women as a whole, because I think that feminism isn't just about who has a uterus and who doesn't) process information rather differently, cope with surroundings differently, and take action differently than "Males." Not better or worse, but different, and this difference is a complement and has equal value and equal merit as the masculine principle.

Just the very act of procreation in sexual species shows how very different each principle contributes to ensuring that our species is propagated on this planet.

Oops! I have to get going. My daughter and I need to run some errands despite the fact that I've got a lot on my mind this morning with this topic. *kiss kiss*

 

[blackout]

Nyx is hot. :drool:

Sorry for my very unscholarly response.:sorry1:
(anything more would have landed me in eros...)

 

[MysticSang'ha]

All righty then. I'm back for a few more minutes to log some more thoughts down on the matter.

After posting in another thread how my husband and I express and interpret our needs and experiences very differently from each other, I'd like to address how the varying experiential aspects of religion by gender is due to certain things like cultural conditioning, or divine intervention, or to human delusion and error, or how our brains are wired differently...........or all of the above.

Something that Tom mentioned earlier and I'd like to respond further:

In my opinion, the Bible has plenty of material from a female POV, although probably not as much as a modern woman would prefer, but then again, most of it isn't really written from a "male" POV, it's more of an objective POV that happened to be written by men.

It looks to me that there is an inherent assumption that were the Bible written by women at that time and in that area, nothing would be changed. It would still be the same Bible with the same language and the same words. And if this is the assumption, then I disagree. Women, by and large, communicate differently than men.........religious commentary in this day and age, imo, are still quite different between the two genders. The experiences between St. Teresa of Avila were different than those of St. Francis of Assisi. Or St. Augustine. Or Paul. Or the authors of the Gospels.

I submit that women's scholarship in religious studies as well as women's opportunities to mentor or teach in many religious traditions (at most the major religions including my own) throughout most of recorded history has been severely lacking, and that humanity has missed out on much that women could offer in terms of insight and wisdom from a female POV. For overtly patriarchal societies to attribute masculine POV's as the "norm", and feminine POV's as a deviation from the "norm", and to then discourage women from voicing her unique experiential religious experiences in a group setting with both men and women, I believe this to be disingenuous to everyone - both women and men. We all lose, then.

The books I'd mentioned in the OP have mentioned various tantras, mantras, and rituals that were developed specifically by women in Tibetan Buddhist history, and therefore show how women helped to shape the religion that I practice today. I do have a critical eye on the information I'm reading, and that is the sobering fact that despite having women at all in the development of Tibetan Buddhism, this school of Buddhism overall had been too misogynistic and patriarchal in it's history for me to stomach easily. Hopefully, this is changing..........

BTW, I'm halfway through "Dakini's Warm Breath....." by Judith Simmer-Brown, and I'm feeling so much more grounded as a woman spiritually and as a practicing Tibetan Buddhist.

 

[Hema]

In Hinduism God is neither male nor female but has male and female aspects, such as being considered as a Divine Mother or Father. The Deities within Hinduism, are male and female, but they are also manifestations or different aspects of that same one God.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Bumpity-bump!

Our Dharma center is working on implementing a women's study group that will address these issues. I've asked to lead this group, and hopefully we'll be able to discuss/debate/understand these very important issues. :yes:



Some things that y'all can help me with if the group does materialize and our parent organization gives us it's blessings:

Are there specific religious topics that are important to educate women for everyone's benefit? If so, what are they? I feel that education leads to empowerment, and that this is the first step.

How can we ensure that a feminine principle is inclusionary for all people? What can we do to keep the pendulum from swinging wildly to the opposite direction that could result in bigotry against masculinity?

If the empowerment of women in religion is fully realized, how can it be solidified as part of the very same establishment that has acted as an agent of persecution? In other words, what can be done to ensure that this empowerment isn't merely a flash in the pan, and to make sure we don't see a rash of women theologists and mystics who are forgotten after a couple of generations?