The article on Lisa Nowak brings to mind a question about why we as a culture would become fascinated with the obsessive behavior of a jealous woman in a fight over a man with another woman. Do we know all the facts? Should we even care? Is this just another stupid pop-ed story about two women fighting over a desirable mate or something more?

As humans, we have always been fascinated with the interaction between male and female, especially when the situation entails jealousy and rivalry. This situation arises not only from the personal issues involved but from the need for economic stability in society supported by marriage and inheritance laws. As with modern society, relationships are driven not only by emotions but by the need for power and economic security. The goddesses like Hera, Juno and Frigg were jealous not only because of their partnerships with the Father gods but because their rivals threatened their positions of power and that of their children.

In societies like early Greece, where marriages were for positioning and heirs while love was restricted to the same sex, they highlighted this aspect. However, history is filled with examples of women married to kings and other men of power whose children lost their inheritance or even their lives when the father lost interest in their mother. This has been the case ever since the inheritance laws changed from matrilineal inheritance to patrilineal inheritance. The stories of the goddesses of marriage reflect this dichotomy.

According to modern American culture a relationship is supposed to be based only in emotion and physical attraction instead of economic necessity for the support and future inheritance of the family. We no longer have guidance for our belief systems other than the popular media. Of course you could argue that the stories of the gods and goddesses were the popular media of their time. I don't agree because I have yet to see it determined that our current popular media serves any interests other than those of the advertising, political and corporate industries.

If you look at the stories of those goddesses of the home and hearth from an emotional standpoint, their behavior may seem bizarre and even threatening. Personally, I would wonder why any man would stand for this kind of behavior in their life partner but there were more reasons for their partnership than physical attraction. We justify it these days with protestations of romantic love. That if a man or women truly loved each other then they would remain partners for the remainder of their life with total fidelity no matter what each of them do.

These were not the lessons that were demonstrated in the stories of Zeus and Hera or Jupiter and Juno. Yes, they were from cultures that drew from each and other and as such had similar experiences. But the human experience at that time in those cultures reflected that marriages and partnerships were founded more on economic realities rather than emotional desires. In spite of their jealous and spiteful attempts to rid themselves of their rivals and their rivals children, both of these goddesses were greatly honored in the cultures that acknowledged them. There were consequences for their behavior but they were still the ones that protected the stability of the hearth and home.

Maybe if we had the stories of the gods and goddesses to help and guide us, we might not focus on what is really a sad story of an efficient and competent women who let her need for a man to complete her drive her to actions that she normally would never contemplate.

Why call Ms. Nowak an efficient and competent woman, in view of the reason why she made headlines? Mainly because institutions like NASA do not normally allow incompetents to operate components of the space shuttle. When she and the other two parties violated a tenet that has served employees of the same company well for years, namely don't date people in the same organization, they did themselves a true disservice. They made themselves laughingstocks. I include the other two parties because I consider the death of dignity a loss for all. Was it necessary for the situation to develop as it did? Probably not.

There were consequences that affected all three of them as well as the rest of society. All women in our society lose when one woman who has succeeded allows her emotions to overcome her leading to the loss of her occupation and possibly the loss of her freedom. Our society is lessened by the ridicule that people who wish to control the image of the sacred feminine will cast on women because of Lisa's actions. However, the person who lost the most was Lisa Nowak. I feel sorrow for her and relief that she still has some friends who will support her through this ordeal she has instigated.

— Arnulfa

Image: Hera, from about.com

Lisa Nowak | Goddess | Marriage | Sacred Fems | SacredFems.com

Labels: Arnulfa, Gods and goddesses, Lisa Nowak, Marriage

I have said that the soul is not more than the body,
And I have said that the body is not more than the soul,
And nothing, not God, is greater to one than one’s self is.

—Walt Whitman, "Song of Myself"

Our birth is but a sleeping and a forgetting;
The soul that rises with us, our life's Star,
Hath had elsewhere its setting,
And cometh from afar; Not in entire forgetfulness,
And not in utter nakedness,
But trailing clouds of glory do we come
From God who is our home;

— William Wordsworth, "Intimations of Immortality"

I am a woman; born of woman, nurtured by many women, and allowed to grow strong and proud with my feet free to roam the earthy loam of Mother Earth’s sweet soil. I wake to the sound of feminine voices in a house bustling with early morning activity as three daughters scramble to be first in the shower in bathrooms where toilet paper is always running low. I am inseparable from the women who bore me, loved me, nurtured me, and from those who suckled me, love me, and accept my nurturing. I am part of the sacred feminine.

The sacred feminine is not one unified set of beliefs; it is neither a dogma nor a creed to be followed blindly; rather, it is a path, a progression, a cycle of birth, growth, and re-birth. It is living and loving. The sacred feminine is a way of living that calls for us to claim our birthright as sisters, as travelers of life’s passageways, as negotiators of peace, harmony, stability, light and love. The light is within us but it must not be kept there; it must be embraced and shared, given freely to those we encounter.

Embracing the sacred feminine is a way of living life that calls on me to assert my identity in terms of who I am in this place and time, remembering that I am but one of many. Embracing the sacred feminine means that I lay total claim to being a woman, being female, being earthy, and it means that I accept all that it means to be uniquely woman. I am a daughter, a sister, a lover, and a mother. I love the way my body looks, even in this, my 47th year, even including wrinkles, grey, and the effects of gravity that are the gifts of time. I love the way my body smells, the way it smells when I step clean from the shower, the way it smells when I have worked in the garden or walked five miles, the way it smells before/during/after sex. All of those smells are of Mother Earth, of the sacred feminine within me and around me. I live my life fully, seizing the opportunity afforded with each new possibility. I grasp life with both fists and suck the last drop from the great breast of the eternal mother.

Living life centered in the sacred feminine means accepting responsibility. The goddesses present us with options and opportunities. As adults, we make a choice, make a decision, and then accept full responsibility for those choices. I am an adult survivor of childhood abuse, and I allowed that situation over which I had no control as a child to control my early choices. As a result, I found myself in an abusive marriage that was repeating the cycle of abuse. Once I learned to claim the sacred feminine that was within me, I knew to turn away from those unhealthy choices and make wiser decisions.

Whitman’s line that “nothing, not God, is greater to one than one’s self is” speaks to the sacred feminine, the empowerment to claim the self that embraces all things, including lives and souls that have gone before us or approach us in the present, “trailing clouds of glory” to us in this place and time. We are all a part of God, or the Goddess, and she is within us all. We feel it and recognize it in the awareness of those old souls we meet, whose recognition thrills us and lets us learn from our spiritual elders.

Embracing the sacred feminine is not an act of exclusivity that denies men. Men, too, are born of women. The act of sexual intercourse, often described by some feminists as perpetual rape, is really an act of union with the Mother, a way of sharing the sacred feminine. Men and women join together in a celebration of the life force that unites us all; the coupling celebrates the fecundity of the world. Within the sacred feminine, sex is a celebration, a joyful, raucous act that is mutually liberating and not an act of domination of one gender over another.

To live a life within the sacred feminine is, for me, a way of walking in a sacred manner in each day. It means that you share your light, and you touch with love and generosity. You welcome others into your world with an open heart. The sacred feminine has no border patrol to keep immigrants away. The sacred feminine acts as White Calf Woman taught the People to act: to care for the young, to care for the land, to protect the future.

Living the sacred feminine life feels good. It feels healthy and happy and wholesome. Living this life is a life that is open, and accepting and not one that is full of fear and shame. It is always a recollection that we come from and return to “God who is our home” and that we are always and ever at home.

— Chandra

Women's Studies | Sacred Feminine | Sacred Fems | SacredFems.com

Labels: Gods and goddesses, Sacred Feminine, Women's Studies

In response to your post about archetypes, my personal beliefs are:

1. I believe that the gods and goddess exist as corporeal and incorporeal entities representing the energy of the universe in our lives and they are transcendent and not immanent.


2. I believe that the gods call us to them instead of us calling them down.


3. I believe that as transcendent beings they are deserving of respect and honor.


4. I believe that the major religions of this day do not address the sacred feminine in a way that is vital and separate from the patriarchal perception of women.


5. As a result of 4, I believe that the dominant world religions do not offer enough support and role models for women.


6. I believe that it is arrogant for humans to feel that gods are nothing more than aspects of our psyche or inside of ourselves.


7. I believe that applying the principles of science to religion constitutes a part of the practice of science as a religion. I didn't address that issue.


8. I believe that religion incorporated into government is a political and not a spiritual practice related to control of a group of people.

Is that a little clearer?

What I wrote was a statement of personal religious beliefs and not a religious manifesto. I gave the reasons supporting my beliefs in a manner that was probably too wordy but did not indicate that these beliefs apply to all others. In no way did I imply that others are required to believe as I do. That is why I found your statement that you don't need my permission to believe differently so confusing. What closed door? I gladly conduct dialogues with anyone who wants to. By the way, why is my being from a tribe that is indigenous to somewhere other than North America disturbing to you?

Why do you have to know which one in order to understand my words? Does that piece of information make that big a difference? Ad do you really think that because the gods/goddesses are higher than us that it excuses us from responsibility for our own lives? Did I say that anywhere? Because the term crone was claimed by feminists long ago, does that prevent each female from ever being able to rediscover and to claim it again? Things do not remain static and each of us has to walk the road of maiden, mother and crone in our own ways. Those voices of reason and sanity you speak of were frequently silenced forcibly. And I too celebrate all of my life’s passages, including those of mother, grandmother and now crone. Just because I celebrate them with the goddesses as living entities instead of archetypes does not make those passages invalid.

There is a difference in the way that logic is applied to the physical sciences and the way that it is applied to religion or articles of faith. I don't believe the dialogue ended in 1962. It has been going on in philosophy and religion for as long as there have been human beings on this earth and will continue until they are no longer here. To use one of your own examples to demonstrate the difference in applying faith and logic to an area of daily life; when you fly on an airplane you have faith in the theory of aerodynamic principles, which is an abstract, however your logic tells you that there can be mechanical failures that can counteract those principles causing you to crash, which is a concrete consequence of the failure of a physical factor. These are two different applications one is of faith related to the abstract and one is of logic related to a possible physical event. Are we talking about spiritual beliefs, science or religion? If scientists want to make determination of what is faith and what is logic, then let them admit that their beliefs have taken science into the area of religion. Otherwise, we are comparing apples and oranges, when we compare the world of the physical sciences with the world of metaphysics. This is different from an analysis of religion using faith and logic. See point 7.

There is also the concept of dualism in religion that is a little more complex than the term binary. As an adjective, one definition of binary in Merriam Webster’s online dictionary states "...of or relating to the use of stable oppositions (as good and evil) to analyze a subject or create a structural model." I prefer dualism because it is specific to the consideration of spiritual belief systems and as such has a much more complex definition "...a doctrine that the universe is under the dominion of two opposing principles one of which is good and the other evil... or the quality or state of being dual or of having a dual nature." That second definition
describes the spiritual path I obtained from my lineage. They practiced dual faith combining Catholicism with the old ways. The similarities in the two included a belief or doctrine that there is good and evil and that they are in opposition. That is not an uncommon occurrence in primarily catholic countries. Does that clarify my beliefs any?

Yes, there is a concept of religion as "opiate of the masses" as part of the Communist manifesto. I didn't indicate I was not aware of it, it just has no place in my belief system just as I have no place in the communist belief system. That is called freedom of expression. In America, I can say that, under the communist system, I would not have been able to. The issue, if you understand communism is not that I will not allow their belief system, it is that they will not allow anyone else’s. I believe that religion as an expression of personal spiritual beliefs is different from political rhetoric and the oppressive control systems that have been developed by dominant factions in governments to control groups of people. See point 8.

Bottom line: We are saying very similar things but from two different positions on the spiritual beliefs spectrum. I never said anywhere in my article that no other belief systems were valid. I said these beliefs were mine and here are the reasons why I believe that way. You are right, spiritual beliefs are similar across cultures. Is this because they represent archetypes or is this because the human condition is consistent across cultures or even because human minds work in similar ways? Or is it the collective unconscious at work? It is not faith against logic. I said that faith transcends logic. Perhaps I wasn't clear in that it transcends logic in the area of spiritual faith. Logic only works when you agree upon the ground rules of engagement, for example, in the area of subjectivism and the rights of the individual. If a person does something that they believe is not wrong but violates the laws of the country, who is right? The person committing the crime or the law created by the group? Using the theory of subjectivism, then that person committing the crime is not in the wrong, because what each individual decides is equally valid. The laws of the group have no right to infringe upon his belief. So let us agree upon the rules of engagement.

— Arnulfa

Arnulfa | Goddess Archetypes | Women's Studies | Sacred Fems | SacredFems.com

Labels: Archetypes, Arnulfa, Gods and goddesses, Women's Studies

Chandra responds to Arnulfa's articles on faith, logic, goddess-reality and the Crone:

I read with great interest Arnulfa’s thoughts on faith and logic, and her conception of the gods/goddesses as transcendent beings. As a fellow traveler in search of truth and the sacred, I have to applaud her strong belief “that all other human beings are entitled to the same respect in being allowed their own belief systems, whether I agree with them or not.” On the other hand, such a statement almost closes the door for discussion. I’m allowed my own belief system whether Arnulfa agrees with me or not; consequently, she is allowed her belief system whether or not I agree with it. I suppose that’s fair. However, I do have some questions of Arnulfa and her belief system. Is that also fair?

I’m afraid that, even after reading her post, I don’t know exactly what it is that she does believe. For one thing, her entire theory hinges on an acceptance of the binary opposition between faith and logic. Thomas Kuhn, in The Structure of Scientific Revolution (1962) taught us much about shifts in paradigms in the natural sciences. Since that time, it is increasingly difficult to talk in terms of such absolutes as a binary division between faith and logic. It is conceivable that those divisions are false and that one may be very logical and still have faith. After all, I have faith that the airplane I am about to board will fly me safely to my destination even as my logical mind explains the principles of aerodynamics while reminding me of the statistical probabilities of staying airborne vs. crashing. These are not mutually exclusive possibilities. Can’t it be my logic as well as my faith that protects me from the “monsters in the night?” Is faith always the Christian belief in “the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things not seen?” There aren’t many self-respecting scientists out there who continue to support such a binary as Arnulfa proposes.

Secondly, I am not sure where her position that “choice in religion or gods is of paramount importance” in our culture precludes the choice to believe that the very spiritual being(s) she believes in are, in fact, manifestations of the goddess within all things or the same being(s) or even an archetype. Reading spiritual beliefs across cultures can astound the reader with remarkable similarities in myths and legends and forms/types of belief, especially when you include others beyond the “big 5.” Isn’t it equally true that my belief, whatever it is, is a type of religion or god and therefore of equal paramount importance? Even atheism is a form of choice in religion. What of the concept that religion is “the opiate of the masses?” Isn’t that an equal choice deserving of its place?

There are other statements in Arnulfa’s piece that I find troubling, but none more so than her declaration that she is “part of the indigenous tribals, though not of the North American continent.” I want to know which one(s) in order to more fully understand the rest of what she says. It seems an easy way out of a conundrum to say that the gods/goddesses are capable of more than mere humans are capable. It excuses our reluctance to move forward, to take charge, to claim anything as our own. In that vein I can claim the sacred feminine and be excused from the consequences of that choice because there are beings ‘out there’ bigger and more capable than I am and those beings called me to them in ways that prevented my ability to decline. No, I don’t think so. Not for me, anyway. The sacred feminine I embrace is my choice, my salvation, and my responsibility. I embrace the archetypal spirit that flows through us all that allows me both action and agency, and I willingly accept the consequences of both. I celebrate the archetypal mother and crone (that term was reclaimed by feminists a long, long time ago) within me, and I rejoice in my connection to others and to the spiritual foremothers who were voices of reason and sanity in any of the major religions as well as those in the religions of indigenous peoples everywhere, and many of those spiritual belief systems center around women as spiritual leaders and guides, not impure whores.

And, that last statement leads me to reflect on another aspect of the sacred feminine: my independent sexuality and my expressions of it. Gabriel Garcia Marquez, writing in Love in the Time of Cholera, said “nothing one does in bed is immoral if it helps to perpetuate love.” That, too, is an archetypal belief that permeates both the sacred feminine and the consciousness of us all if we will allow its entrée, and in so doing we eliminate yet another binary: that of pure woman vs. the feckless whore.

— Chandra

Goddess | Crone | Faith | Sacred Fems | SacredFems.com

Labels: Crone, Faith, Gods and goddesses, Logic, Women's Studies

Arnulfa wrote this as her response to the "official" Mary-position here that all gods and goddesses are in some sense the same god, an archetype of the human mind and spirit.

Why do I believe that the gods/goddesses are transcendent beings? Why don’t I believe that they are either aspects of the God and Goddess or simple archetypes? It actually comes down to an issue of faith and understanding human psychology.

Faith is emotion based in the human psyche. Early philosophers separated the human being into body, psyche or soul and mind or intellect. Logic was considered to be based philosophically in the area of the intellect. There is nothing logical about faith. As a university student working on majors in philosophy and psychology, I am very involved in the search for reconciliation between faith and logic. Is such a reconciliation between two such different things even possible? That is unknown because in many ways, faith transcends logic. It is the human soul's attempt to believe in something big enough to protect it from the monsters in the night, much like a child’s belief in its parent’s omniscience. Sometimes faith is also necessary to prevent us from becoming the monsters in the night. Does this mean those of us who believe in the gods are children? Perhaps, but whether it is a belief in one of the dominant spiritual practices in our world or one of the alternatives, faith in something bigger than us seems to be critical to human psychological well-being. Faith is a part of the glue that holds communities together. Because it is such a critical aspect of human psychology, I believe that choice in religion or gods is of paramount importance in our culture. Some discussion of those choices would be appropriate.

There are the dominant monotheistic systems of Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Then there are the other alternative belief systems of Buddhism, and Hinduism. These are considered the “Big 5” of world religions. These major religions have many differences but one similarity which they share with any spiritual practice. They require the practice of faith, not logic as defined by the scientific community. Unfortunately, none of the Big 5 allow for much experience of the sacred feminine. The alternatives to these world religions include the pagans who believe in the God and Goddess, with all pantheons representing aspects of these two archetypes. Also there are other people who believe that God is a vast source of energy that manifests itself through archetypes in the human psyche. (See Jung.) There are also those who believe we are the gods and goddesses. These belief systems can be divided between monotheists, polytheists, animists and several other categories in an abundance that is overwhelming in its complexity. A final category is that of the indigenous tribals of each continent. You will notice, I did not address the practice of science as a religion. That is a totally different issue that I can address later.

So now that I have explicated in detail what I feel religion is based on, I should explain that I am part of the indigenous tribals, though not of the North American continent. I believe the gods and spirits are beings that have greater abilities than we humans do. As such, they are entitled to respect. This is the way that my bloodline has practiced for centuries. Now, don’t get me wrong, I chose to participate in that heritage. Half of my family believes in evangelical Christianity, so I had a choice. My desire to experience the sacred feminine drove me to pursue a different tradition. I cannot accept a tradition that considered half the human race to be impure, especially when it is the half that I belong to. I also believe the gods call us rather than our calling on the gods. I have experienced this, not only personally but in watching different religious services. In some religions, the priest or preacher controls the interaction between human and god. In others, the individual or the god can initiate contact.

For some reason, the gods have seen fit to interact with the human race. I don’t understand why at times but it seems humans are such an obstreperous race that sharing a world with them requires some form of interaction. There are many reasons why gods/goddesses might interact with us. Those reasons could include requiring us to perform duties that are to their benefit only. The myths delineate situations in which this is the case. Do the gods/goddesses always do what we perceive as best for us? Or are we required to accept that we are nothing but puppets? I think that neither scenario is totally accurate because it may be a matter of perspective. An adult or parent may perceive a threat or benefit that the less mature child cannot. If the gods have a higher perspective than we do, then we may not be able to understand their actions and requirements. However another explanation could also be the very human tendency to act out and project the blame onto the gods for the resulting disaster.

It seems to be a peculiar arrogance in human nature to assign all aspects of other beings in this world to human archetypes. It is an exercise in attaching logic to faith, much like attaching a log cabin to a modern cathedral. There is no reason why we should relegate all things that we cannot explain to aspects of or abnormalities in human psychology. This aspect of our society seems more allied to control of the population that it does to faith or logic.

Nevertheless it feels like we are now being forced into a choice between a controlling parent god and an anonymous, disinterested force in American culture. This type of choice would be consistent with an exercise in logic and control rather than an exercise in faith. So, I continue to practice my belief in my family gods privately. In a society where being different can limit options, I am very discrete about who I confide my belief systems in. That alone explains why I believe so strongly that all other human beings are entitled to the same respect in being allowed their own belief systems, whether I agree with them or not.

Image: Wedding of Peleus and Thetis, by A. Bloemaert (1564-1651). Note Eris is tossing the apple of discord into the wedding party.

Arnulfa | Gods and Goddesses | Archeypes | Sacred Fems | SacredFems.com

Labels: Archetypes, Arnulfa, Faith, Gods and goddesses