why did it take this long?

[kaigou]

I won't go into any irons I may have in the fire (but I will say it's long since died past embers), but it still surprises me -- and disappoints me greatly -- to discover that this conversation in the pagan world is only now occurring with any significant intensity. It's 2011 already, people. This debate is long overdue.

Comments

[branchandroot]

*snorts* Yeah, the basis of paganism in the West has been so damn cis from the very start. It's one of the things that pushed me away. (Like you, the fire is pretty well burned down for me.)

...well, that and the whole "matriarchal prehistory" bullshit.

[leorising]

Has it really? I never got involved, always sort of watched from the sidelines, so I had no idea.

Seems -- antithetical, doesn't it? Inconsistent? Hypocritical?

Huh. I must've thought too well of the whole pagan movement.

[branchandroot]

*sighs* There are, as they say, reasons but no excuses. One major starting point of it (the really early "aren't we so daring, lookit our mystical clubhouse, we have sex" stage) was desperately sexist. In reaction to that, the first big wave that really established itself as a social movement focused hard on women's issues and empowerment. But it was still pretty desperately het and unthinkingly cis. So then there were the Dianic branch, trying to ameliorate the "it's all about heterosexual sex". And both those reactions, because they were trying to counter something so deeply entrenched and normalized, did not just say "well, there's this other perspective", they said "no, this is the way it works instead". Which meant there wasn't a lot of opening to consider any more perspectives than those.

So I can understand why it started out that way. What I find really inexcusable is how long that "struggling to find space" rhetoric has gone unchallenged and unexamined. Twenty years ago I was looking at this and saying "wow, yeah, that really resonates, but... isn't there more to the world, too?" I'm glad that question is finally getting some traction, but it comes way too late for me to be re-involved.

[dharma_slut]

what you said, and that too.

^_^

[kaigou]

I didn't even know the prefix 'cis' when I first had truck with pagans, so I never had a decent handle to explain what left me a little... not off-balance. But feeling a twinge of wrong in things, if that makes sense. Not until, that is, chatting online with a gay pagan who complained that he and his boyfriend were complete opposites (personality-wise), but noooo, their local coven was insistent that the two parts had to be played by opposites, y'know, not having the same number of legs, so to speak. Which seemed to me to be completely idiotic, but I didn't yet have the tools for articulating why.

Now I do, and I have even less interest in listening to some of that world's rationalizations. But then, I also feel like I left them behind a long time ago -- in, I'm seeing now, even more ways than I'd realized when I first walked out.

[dharma_slut]

I've told this story in a couple of places about how an old Skool Gardnerian priest and priestess came to do a guest ritual. There were two MTFs and me, and our circle hadn't even blinked-- just let us perform as our preferred gender. These old people however, completely ignored the circle's policies and shifted us so that we stood in accordance with our body's sex. The ladies were too ladylike to say anything, but I protested-- and the priest told me our gender didn't matter, only our sex.

So Garderians can be fundy too.

I had to make the decision to... well, not to ruin the day for everyone else. And it was the day that Bush announced "we" were at war with afghanistan, and we all needed some comfort in community, so I stood between two gay men who gave me conspiratorial winks.

Thing is, I completely understand the Dianics wanting that particular ritual to be about the ovaries and the blood. I'm cool with that. I don't see any reason to be inclusive at all times. BUT!

What the community needs to learn is that inclusivity will become the norm more and more, and that intent for an exclusive ritual needs to be spelled out. That assumption of exclusivity is a privilege that must be given up.

[kaigou]

In my experience, anyone can uncompromisingly strict (fundy) to the letter and not the spirit. In the decade or so that I was more active with those communities (never having been one for sticking to just one), I saw more letter than spirit, to be honest. And when you get into trans-issues, I hate admitting it, but that's when the worst aspects of humanity would come to the forefront.

CP and I were talking about this earlier, and I mentioned that one linked article (in the link-round up I linked to), someone argued that women are socialized differently than men, so if you weren't "born" a woman, then you... I don't know, don't have the socialization to "be" a woman in certain circles? Which strikes me as completely wrong-headed. How else would someone learn what it means to "be" a woman in this culture (seeing how socialization is also acculturation) than to spend time with like souls, learning from them? An immigrant coming from a place where the gender of "woman" is defined differently goes through the same learning process (if in different ways) as a M2F trans would, I think -- it's socialization. Later in life, but hey, that person is one of us (whatever us may be) now.

So the person is being socialized a little bit late, but at the same time -- a lot of the socialization of women really stinks! Why on earth would I want to grant that argument any water, if I personally think it's pretty reprehensible, the way parents/adults reinforce strict gender lines on small children? Arguing that childhood-socialization is the difference also puts way too much weight on something that happened [censored] years ago, and I'm an adult, now. I'd like to take responsibility for my own freaking socialization, instead of blaming it on whether I was held looking forwards or backwards by my parents.

[dharma_slut]

Well, it can be, honestly, a bit rough on the people you are expecting to do the socialising-- when what they want to do is the freaking ritual and get some comfort.

[kaigou]

True. Except a great part of socialization is non-verbal and non-instructive. It's just plain being with others-like-yourself. In other words, I don't see that it's something that requires a whole lot of hoohah. So maybe some of the group may have different interior perspectives, but given the myriad experiences that everyone's bringing to the table, wouldn't we all?

And although I know (or am guessing that I know) you're maybe playing devil's advocate on that... it just seems to me to be rather, I don't know, what would be the best word? It seems like it's saying you only deserve a ritual's comfort if you qualify in some very limited ways, but if the ritual's purpose is for, say, "women", then wouldn't even newly-made women need just as much comfort as born-made women? Maybe, given the society's biases against newly-made, even more comfort and validation of being part of a ritual?

It just seems like a double slap, to me. Can't go forward, can't go back. If we carry their nonsense to the final level, is there a written test to prove you're socialized/educated enough as-a-woman to qualify for citizenship? Do you have to swear on something that you've jumped through all the paperwork hoops and have done your five years with a trans green card and have paid your social fees? And afterwards, does anyone give you flowers? What absolute tripe.

So maybe someone's new to the country of women, but she'll learn the language as best she can, and immersion can be -- should be -- a valuable and wonderful way to do that. Maybe she'll always speak with a slight accent, but that doesn't make her any less of a citizen just because some morons think she only counts if she was born here.

[thejeopardymaze]

There is also the cultural appropriation, which is one of the main reasons why I have a problem with defending the Dianic tradition in generation.

[branchandroot]

All over the place, yes! And even aside from the essential disrespect toward live people that shows, if you transplant any myth figure out of its history and context what earthly meaning is that supposed to have?

[thejeopardymaze]

if you transplant any myth figure out of its history and context what earthly meaning is that supposed to have?

A soft pile of warm money?

I'm glad the reconstructionist communities exist, but even they aren't free of problems. To be fair, religious communities in general aren't.

Since its too late to edit

[thejeopardymaze]

I meant in general.

[kaigou]

And the historical reconstructionism in general, which really seems to attract an awful lot of some of the most awful excuses for historical justification and revisionism that I've ever seen. We had several books like that in the shop, but I recall a particularly egregious one that claimed to be about the 'actual history' of Celtic Wiccanism... that took images of Sheila-na-Gig side by side with late medieval carvings of the Three Wise Men and created this mishmash nonsense that had nothing to do with either. I mean, we're talking made up out of whole cloth.

It was so bad that it became the only book for which I ever called the distributor, complained, and then informed them that I'd rather eat the $10 wholesale cost than ever risk that tripe falling into ignorant hands to be so utterly misled by such a horrendous excuse for historical accuracy. I shoved the book into a box (because I couldn't bring myself to burn it) and refused to put it on the shelves, even if I did get requests for ordering it. Gee, no, not available!

Two months later, on the phone making an order, and one of my regular order-takers at the distributors was pleased to pass along the gossip that the book had been yanked from print. Hah.

[thejeopardymaze]

The only good CR book I know of is the CR FAQ, but it isn't without some problems, like the claims Celtic women were treated better than their Mediterranean counterparts, and I now really doubt there was ever an Irish astrology (I will write a long public entry about this on another blog about it, I promise). Still, at least it advocates reading the sourcetexts and literature on folk traditions, and I find the Celtic and Germanic folk tradition material useful for Indo-European comparison studies, at least for nature spirits.

[kaigou]

The beginning of the end for me was actually, well, at the beginning, when I was first introduced to wiccan ritual (in one of the books on our shelves) and flipped through, only to stop and read the basic intro... and then ask, of the wiccan/pagans, "Lord and Lady? Why do I have to be the Lady?"

Which at the time, was treated as a Stupid Question.

And that I now know to be very much a not-stupid question.

[branchandroot]

For serious. The whole thing was just so second-wave-feminism, complete with "must recuperate femininity! which means straight, white, middle class, vanilla, dualistic femininity!". There was some good activist work being done in places, but there has been way too much laurel-resting. Can has third wave already?

[kaigou]

The crazy thing is that the laurel-resting seems to be on someone else's laurels. The major strides by the second wave weren't done by pagans, though they may have been on the sidelines. Or maybe I studied too much academic/classic feminism, and that's why I tended to go into eyeroll-mode whenever femini-pagans around me would start parroting tripe about how advancing paganism is a sign of advancing feminism. There may be a link in that women participated in both movements, but that doesn't make it causal.

[thejeopardymaze]

If it weren't for the plethora of polytheist recon sites online, I probably would of just converted to something like Hinduism or Shintoism. I never understood the appeal of Wiccan cosmology, ever.

[kaigou]

It's too restrictive for someone like me. Or maybe I'm just an ornery heretic, and if you say I have a choice of A and B, then I'll fight tooth and nail to create, invent, or shanghai an option C. At least until option C becomes easily available, at which point I'd much rather do D, thanks. Okay, maybe I'm just plain ornery that way.