Post: #1

OMG. Wow, just wow. This article. Wow.

Gloria Steinem as Playboy Bunny:


The article is clearly bullshit on its face, but it is emblematic of how modern feminists use feminist to address inner psychological states.

Quote:Beginning in the late 1960s, during Gloria's second wave of feminism, there was talk of feminine spirituality as an important aspect of female liberation. Women gathered in circles to talk about the Goddess, talk about their experiences, and participate in rituals that honored the feminine. While these circles were strong, there seemed to be a separation between these women and the women who were more on the political front lines. The spiritual ones believed that the work could be accomplished from their inner work (aka, inner psychic reality creates outer material reality, or the personal is political), and the political ones believed that the spirituality circles were too inwardly directed and not effective on a material level.

The '60's may be many things, but what is most salient is the birth of mainstream narcissism. It blossomed in the 1960's, having two distinct and divergent paths: the spiritual and the political. The politically minded feminist narcissists eventually folded themselves into the spiritually mind feminist narcissists in the '70's, as the obsession with therapy overtook the preoccupation with politics. Hence, the political disquiet of the 1970's. Some thought yuppies would overthrow this reign of political quiet and disillusionment in the 1980's - they were wrong.

Still, this queer strain of female worship isn't surprising. She describes that some feminists argued that self-worship was a necessary component of feminism. They are right, but they just need different authority figures. Political feminists -- as we see with modern women -- decided capitalism was the chosen path for self-worth (worship) and pursued jobs with wild abandon. As we see now, the relationship between government/corporations is the preeminent concern of the modern woman. She talks a big game about love/romance but what matters most is what her employer and government thinks about her.

This is a clear example of paternalism without God, without the father/husband. Women swapped out men in their direct life with employers/media: her boss, her co-worker who "is an expert on sex" and experts in media on X, Y and Z. Instead of relying on men and women who she knows and cares about her, she relies on dispassionate and disinterested figures that care only about their own self-image.

Quote:What needs to be shared here that many people forget (or maybe don't even realize) is that the spirituality of women, otherwise known as feminine spirituality, long pre-dates male religion. Father God is actually a spiritual newcomer, relative to Mother Goddess.

Archeologists and historians from around the world have discovered massive amounts of evidence showing us that during a period approximately of 25,000 years (30,000 B.C. to 4,500 B.C.), society and culture the world over was based on the Mother Principle, with Goddess as the primary religious leader and symbol.

What about before 30,000 B.C.?

Quote:There are some who say that male religion and culture worked very hard to strategically obliterate the history of the Goddess and female-oriented religion and culture over the approximate two-thousand year takeover (4500 B.C. to 2000 B.C.). That in fact the goal of the writers of patriarchal religions and mythologies was to legitimize the new culture of patriarchal warriors and de-legitimize the Goddess. The Bible was written not long afterwards. In this document, the creation story was written where it took the power of birth away from woman and gave it to man. Adam made from God. Eve made from Adam's rib.

Why? This is one, massive whale of a conspiracy theory. Kosko needs to weigh in on this one.

Quote:Knowing about our Goddess history legitimizes female power in society. It reminds us of the goodness of the female body and the sacredness of every female being.

When we learn about our Goddess lineage, we change the way we view and value ourselves, and are able to challenge the underlying assumptions, values and structures that dominate our society. Knowledge of this part of our human story calls into question ingrained views about power and authority and has the power to shatter long-standing cultural attitudes about women.

Imagine what we could accomplish in these next 50 years if we were to "think big, unite and use our power." Imagine women, men, girls and boys each seeing themselves as equally valuable human beings. Imagine how life would look and feel then.

Her last sentence negates her whole equality argument. But, that doesn't matter to her agenda.

Women like this only understand power as reflected through omnipotent figures. I recall an episode of Castle where Kate Beckett -- the lead detective -- lost her gun for a period of time. It was terribly mentally exhausting for her, as the gun was a symbol of power gifted to her by the all-powerful state.

Women like the author don't understand power insofar as it relates to true personal autonomy. She repeatedly used the word "empowerment" because, in her mind, power is only gifted, not earned nor taken.

Focus on that last statement of hers: she thinks that when true equality is achieved, we will exist in some sort of modern-day Eden: the same Eden she falsely believes existed in the past. It seems her measuring stick for "equality" (which is code for inner peace, ported out as a gender issue) is whether men and women are at peace with each other in our relations. We aren't.

She thinks that if women have more "empowerment" -- state/corporate approval -- that we will solve this "gender issue." She is wrong. The problem is trying to turn a deeply religious society based on the supremacy of God and "Father knows best" into something else. You could be completely right such a society is 100% wrong, but it makes no sense to overthrow such an approach. What will you replace it with? Oh, right, narcissism swooped right in and replaced the displaced social conventions.

Ironically enough, this is a clear example of a woman who will take clear orders from female superiors with no bitching about sexism. Her male boss comments on her lack of makeup - FUCK THE PATRIARCHY! Her female boss asks about why she isn't wearing makeup - OMG....HE BROKE UP WITH ME. She is guaranteed to conform to any social norm, as long as the right figure is preaching to her.

If you want to exploit women, brand it as feminism. They will fall for it every time.

Post: #2

Julius Evola is facepalming from beyond the grave.

Post: #3

I have no doubt that ancient cave dwelling half-apes in 30 000 BC or whenever were matriarchal and had a goddess centered religion, just like a child learns that his mother is the most important thing in his life while small and needs her milk and care.

However as a child grows he discovers the outside world, outside of the protecting and nurturing reach of his mother. To survive and prosper in this outside world he turns to his father who has already mastered this world at least to a level that allowed hm to impregnate the mother. A growing human increasingly abandons the nurturing of his mother and increasingly follows the footsteps and examples of his father to learn how to dominate the wide world.

Similarly ancient people could all be worshiping goddess and masturbating to her image in their caves, but when the time came to leave the cave - God the Father was the one who guided them into successful conquests and surface civilization building.

Basement dwellers still masturbate to goddess images to this day. Successful people emulate the shattered image of the ultimate man a.k.a. God by taking examples of other successful men (each a shard of the whole image of God) and interacting with the wide open world by taking risks and establishing dominance trough business, sports, fighting, inventing or art or whatever.

Every animal follows nothing but he feminine imperative, humans made a leap from this state by starting to worship a male God. That's the biggest leap in evolution made by humans ever. Those who turn backwards are regressing into animal state, that's all about "goddess worship".

Post: #4

Well, I for one don't give a fuck whether we're worshipping a God or a Goddess, as long as it's not used as a justification for various stupid claims like in this article.

I'm certain that if Isis, Freya, Athena or Earth Mother were real, they'd probably smite these fools and exile them to the far corners of the world for betraying their feminine nature and fellow people in their mad lust for power.

Post: #5

First off- WB on the image of the playboy bunny in the OP.

Did the provide any examples of the mother goddess worshipping cultures? I know that there was some tribe in Africa that was matriarchically arranged.

Even if people did worship female goddesses, that doesn't mean that women in ancient times were attention whoring tatted up fatties who controlled everything.

Also keep in mind that at the time she's describing, there concept of a god- the power of a god was spread amongst myriad objects of worship; people were pagans and worshipped all types of things that they saw as important in their lives. Just because they might had a female god doesn't mean that they believed the female to be some all powerful creature etc. There's a high probability that the huff post article is cherry picking here. If you are going to talk about things the Venus of willendorf or whatever, you should also mention that people worshipped things like the sun and per circled agency in everyday objects. It's not like everyone was monotheistic ally worshipping a female god. One thing is certain- the character of god in the monotheistic religions is definitely based on a male warrior king tyrant. This is more than obvious.

Religion "evolved" to monotheism- it went from many gods to one. The next great step for man is to take it one step further and go from one to zero. We used to believe that responsibility and agency was displaced outside of us in many charmed objects. Then it got collected into group of anthropomorphic characters. Then they all merged into one.. Each step is moving the will and responsibility from the outside to the inside. It's time for people to realize that they are responsible for themselves, not some made up character.