I have a sort of dilemma in understanding the issues of womans spirituality. Some feminist critiques focus mainly on the subjugation of the objective woman. I had started to consider it more in terms of the subjugation of feminine nature in general. The subjugation not being specific to a physical female, but rather to femininity within the individual physical male or female. This related to a specific dichotomy I had in mind, femininity and masculinity. Both of which had definite properties which could be understood through a hermeneutic approach to researching cultural history. These definite properties could be observed by looking at how masculinity and femininity had been traditional represented symbolically in myth and religion. Masculinity was rigid, rational, and orderly. Femininity was mysterious, chaotic, and irrational. The subjugation of woman would then be indicative of a much deeper problem that had especially gained foothold during the enlightenment. The excessive denial of superstition and reverence towards rational represented a thinly disguised illusion keeping people from seeing the darker truth of their new found gestalt - empiricism was simply the continuation of patriarchal subjugation of femininity. The Enlightenment had replaced Zeus with Reason. Specifically identifying this problem with a physical woman in my mind was the fundamental mistake of the feminist movement. In doing so, the movement had not directly addressed the real problem of the spiritually repressed feminine. Men also required a liberation of femininity in their own personage to guarantee a more egalitarian society. Reinvention and reestablishment of the divine feminine seemed ultimately necessary. And so I generally found my self more-so interested in feminism through the so-called new age movement of womans spirituality. My post-structural split. The dilemma in which I am concerned is if femininity illustrated as mysterious and irrational is merely just a psychological projection of western society. I had a naive structuralist assumption that material characteristics of femininity and masculinity could be understood as definite properties metaphysically exhibited throughout the literal tradition of western history. Let me play with this for a moment and try to enunciate my concern. Goddess conceptually is generally associated with the moon throughout western culture. Femininity is associated to the moon, an emblem of the night that has several connotations including irrationality, and mystery and the association probably also alludes to the fact that night is dark. Woman are then associated with mystery – in my mind woman have always seemed mysterious, but historically it may have to do with childbirth. The masculine sun is what brings light to the world, it makes the unintelligible, intelligible, and is symbolic of a metaphor for “instrumental reason” and its ability to demystify. However consider this illustration, day is rational because it is light, night is irrational because it is dark – night is dangerous, and the light of the moon is the female protector. The moon makes what is unintelligible at night slightly intelligible – a much better metaphor for rationalization because reason could never fully demystify reality, which still pretty much remains dark. Consider that man is irrational, or rather, masculinity is irrational and dangerous. The irrationality of night which is masculine needs the light of a feminine personage to induct rationality. Some cultures have personified the moon as masculine. I am not convinced that the association of femininity with mystery is anything more than a powerful psychological projection of western culture. Form is formless. The problem for me gets deeper. Twentieth century feminists maintained that woman were equally rational as men, therefore were entitled to the same natural rights. This reflects a disassociation of femininity with irrationality, but further represses mystery. If femininity is at least partially a naturally occurring metaphysical phenomena inherit with specific properties as illustrated by the western tradition, this type of feminist approach could merely be a re-establishment of masculinity within the physical woman. It would not address the fundamental problem of feminine repression. If that femininity being equated to irrationality is merely a projection specific to society, giving credibility to rationality over irrationality in the physical individual is still seemingly oppressive. Although, magic is projection. The magic is that the projection appears real. Therefore the feminine oppression is real. However, I maintain no absolute perceptible metaphysical form actually exists. Forms may be better understood as morphing habits. I worship mystery, I revere irrationality, and I embellish in my superstitious moments. God, mystery, unintelligible, neither masculine nor feminine. However the literary reoccurring formless formations emphasize a material polytheism which I cannot doubt. Edward Matthews 2015
Posted on: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 08:30:57 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015