|
|
Post by NubianWitch on Mar 1, 2011 23:55:55 GMT -5
This does not make any sense to me. The term "male witch" reinforces the idea that men are emasculating their psyches???  I've heard of the "wise woman" term. I've also heard that the word "witch" was originally an insult that early Christians labeled pagan priests and priestesses. I think you'd understand if you fully read the rest of the sentence. I said that by saying "male witch", it reinforces the idea that men are emasculating their psyches if they only call themselves just a "witch"... As a man, this is something I know and experience everyday when boys and men are constantly pressured by society into being "tough", and even when it's something that's emotional/creative in nature they just HAVE to "man it up" Hence: Instead of relationship it's "brolationship" and "bromance" Instead of handbag it's "man-bag" and "man-purse" Instead of eyeliner they now call it "guyliner" It's really sickening. I'm so f*cking tired of having my feelings devalued and being told I'm "lesser" because I have a certain set of chromosomes.  |
|
|
|
Post by erikamarie on Mar 2, 2011 12:21:24 GMT -5
I agree with Es, before Greek divinities in Europe it was prevalent the cult of the triple goddess and her priestesses ruled the community: the priestesses of the goddess have long maintained their power even in warrior society as the Spartan
The Triquetra / Triskelion is a symbol that is spread across all Europe from Crete to Sicily or Isle of Man
Robert Graves used Frazer anthropological studies to find a cultural continuum in all Indo-European peoples to explain the passage from the Great Goddess to the male gods and to a different type of social organization
|
|
Esmeralda
Charmed
S2 "What If...?"
Fan Fic Winner
Twenty Years Gone....But Never Forgotten.
Posts: 21,920 
|
Post by Esmeralda on Mar 2, 2011 12:38:12 GMT -5
*nods* You're exactly right, Erika. This is also the information I've discovered, started back in high school when I read Marion Zimmer Bradley's "Firebrand" (a retelling of the Trojan War from Kassandra's point of view) and wanted to know just how much of it was based on reality. What I found fascinated me so much that I did a research paper on this and got an A.
This is also why it's a serpent that tempts Eve - many of those ancient religions worshipped a serpent-mother.
|
|
|
|
Post by erikamarie on Mar 3, 2011 10:25:46 GMT -5
*nods* You're exactly right, Erika. This is also the information I've discovered, started back in high school when I read Marion Zimmer Bradley's "Firebrand" (a retelling of the Trojan War from Kassandra's point of view) and wanted to know just how much of it was based on reality. What I found fascinated me so much that I did a research paper on this and got an A. This is also why it's a serpent that tempts Eve - many of those ancient religions worshipped a serpent-mother. I loved that book and the Mists of Avalon too! The anthropologists date at the primitive civilizations the combination woman / magic, they had very vague ideas about procreation and attributed to the women the magic of the birth When it began the development of the rural society, they thought that a goddess-the great mother- had the power to make fertile the fields and her magic could be transmitted only through women Till the advent of Achaean civilization the magic belonged to the women, it is an anthropological fact, not sexism |
|
Esmeralda
Charmed
S2 "What If...?"
Fan Fic Winner
Twenty Years Gone....But Never Forgotten.
Posts: 21,920
|
Post by Esmeralda on Mar 3, 2011 11:37:09 GMT -5
*nods* You're exactly right, Erika. This is also the information I've discovered, started back in high school when I read Marion Zimmer Bradley's "Firebrand" (a retelling of the Trojan War from Kassandra's point of view) and wanted to know just how much of it was based on reality. What I found fascinated me so much that I did a research paper on this and got an A. This is also why it's a serpent that tempts Eve - many of those ancient religions worshipped a serpent-mother. I loved that book and the Mists of Avalon too! Me, too! *nods* All exactly correct. For this you have been blessed! |
|
ljones
Whitelighter
Posts: 4,123
|
Post by ljones on Mar 3, 2011 14:04:48 GMT -5
Is it an anthropological fact . . . or opinion?
Is the idea of men and women being spiritually equal that hard to fathom? Why is it that so many societies - whether they are ancient or modern - are incapable of viewing the genders on an equal basis? Is it really that important to view one gender as more powerful than the other? Because that is the impression I am receiving.
|
|
Lexi
Familiar
Peek-a-boo...I see you!
Posts: 218
|
Post by Lexi on Mar 3, 2011 15:15:21 GMT -5
Is the idea of men and women being spiritually equal that hard to fathom? Why is it that so many societies - whether they are ancient or modern - are incapable of viewing the genders on an equal basis? Is it really that important to view one gender as more powerful than the other? Because that is the impression I am receiving. Men and women will never be considered equal no matter how much you try. Currently there are arguments that women should be allowed on the front line, which is not allowed in the British forces (not sure about anywhere else). However, there are extremely good reasons why they should not be on the front line; women just aren't built the same way as men. A woman can have a child without the need of a man - there is artificial insemination. But a man cannot have a child without a women. So that is why in some societies women are considered the better sex. Modern gypsies consider the women as lesser beings - they're not allowed to work. It has just always been the thing where women and men are not considered equal and probably never will be - there is never that fine balance. Yes, it may seem as unfair to either sex but there is nothing anybody can do to change it. They try but it will go too far the opposite way. EDIT: I'm not sure how much sense that makes. I'm starting to fall asleep - it's been a very long day for me! |
|
|
|
Post by NubianWitch on Mar 3, 2011 19:36:48 GMT -5
I think this is all very lovely and great, but ljones is right, that's *opinion*, not fact. Want fact? Try the fact that you're all only discussing ancient European religions, not any of the thousands of pagan traditions spread across continental Africa, Asia, North America, Central America & the Caribbean, South America, Indigenous Australia, Oceania/Polynesia, etc., where different aspects arose at different times. Some traditions honoured the feminine form, others honoured the masculine, others honoured a NON-GENDERED creative force that exists within all things, many paid tribute to a co-equal male/female pair, and others gave spiritual recognition to the idea of an androgynous godhead, which is were we gay/lesbian/bisexual/two-spirit people come in. We're the balancing force, the equalizers between the masculine/feminine war that still rages on. My speciality is in African and Native American lore and all of this idea that "magic only belongs to women" isn't a part of a lot of the indigenous traditions that went on and are still going on. See what I mean? Don't make the grave mistake of placing all gender/social advents in the hands of Europe. That's what prejudiced archaeologists have done and still do, not regular people, like us, who have access to the truth. And the truth is that it's impossible to say "magic only belonged to women until the advent of the Achaean civilization", there are other, different civilizations that came *first*  |
|
|
|
Post by NubianWitch on Mar 3, 2011 19:42:32 GMT -5
Is the idea of men and women being spiritually equal that hard to fathom? Why is it that so many societies - whether they are ancient or modern - are incapable of viewing the genders on an equal basis? Is it really that important to view one gender as more powerful than the other? Because that is the impression I am receiving. Men and women will never be considered equal no matter how much you try. Currently there are arguments that women should be allowed on the front line, which is not allowed in the British forces (not sure about anywhere else). However, there are extremely good reasons why they should not be on the front line; women just aren't built the same way as men. A woman can have a child without the need of a man - there is artificial insemination. But a man cannot have a child without a women. So that is why in some societies women are considered the better sex. Modern gypsies consider the women as lesser beings - they're not allowed to work. It has just always been the thing where women and men are not considered equal and probably never will be - there is never that fine balance. Yes, it may seem as unfair to either sex but there is nothing anybody can do to change it. They try but it will go too far the opposite way. EDIT: I'm not sure how much sense that makes. I'm starting to fall asleep - it's been a very long day for me! I think you're wading into very unsafe waters, here. The question is not of whether or not we'll ever be considered "equal" (and I have serious issues with the idea of equality because there are so many social paradigms going on), but the question is: do *you* consider women and men equal? I'm not saying you don't consider it, but those who don't consider men equal to women and women equal to men are subconsciously and/or consciously perpetuating the feud and the inequality, adding fire to the furnace, and only want to hold onto something to argue about and stomp their feet in for eternity until the human race fizzles out. It's really sickening, and getting old.  Also, what does artificial insemination have to do with pagan traditions/societies, really? That's a fairly new success in Western science. Non-Western pagans around the world don't need artificial insemination to prove how glorious and amazing human childbirth is. There are only a handful of known female animals in species around the world that can give birth without the need of a male, and misandrists/radical feminists/man-haters love to point this out, but it's convenient to their sexist cause to to not recognize the male seahorse being the one who carries the developing baby seahorse fetus for the entire period until he gives birth to it? Is it so impossible to realize that females giving birth and having all of the necessary requirements (menstruation, menopause, etc.) is not something super-special and "superior" , but something prehistoric females developed/adapted to out of the primordial soup by a sheer stroke of luck? Because males have many equivalents of female identifiers (male G-spot, many males can lactate, the thingy/scrotum are extensions of the girl thingy/clitoral area, etc.) This means that perhaps before the coming of modern man there was one, unified sex that eventually split off with all the appropriate hormones? People born intersexed are sort-of proof of this idea. |
|
|
|
Post by NubianWitch on Mar 3, 2011 20:04:00 GMT -5
As for the artificial insemination argument, I've said it before, I'll say it again: It's artificial. There's no love in that, no union of the male and female (which is beautiful). And artificial or not, it's still insemination. It's still connected to the male sperm, which is an unshakeable requirement, but then if we all decide to make everything about artificial insemination--what happens to men? Oh, so they just become faces on a page, donors, etc., with no relevance except what's inside of their testicles can bring to the birthing table. What happens to boy children, then? They grow up with the idea that they're only worth as much as their sperm, then, I guess and become dejected members of society? Hell no. I don't think so. |
|
Esmeralda
Charmed
S2 "What If...?"
Fan Fic Winner
Twenty Years Gone....But Never Forgotten.
Posts: 21,920
|
Post by Esmeralda on Mar 3, 2011 21:51:03 GMT -5
As for the artificial insemination argument, I've said it before, I'll say it again: It's artificial. There's no love in that, no union of the male and female (which is beautiful). And artificial or not, it's still insemination. It's still connected to the male sperm, which is an unshakeable requirement, but then if we all decide to make everything about artificial insemination--what happens to men? Oh, so they just become faces on a page, donors, etc., with no relevance except what's inside of their testicles can bring to the birthing table. What happens to boy children, then? They grow up with the idea that they're only worth as much as their sperm, then, I guess and become dejected members of society? Hell no. I don't think so. Love has nothing to do with it. To create, a woman can do it herself. It's something a man can't. But like someone said, we're getting into very sticky waters. So let's just agree that men are not better than women; women are not better than men; they just *different* But due to the ancient not-so-smart customs, women *used to be* considered more powerful. the reason why witches were originally female, hence you never call a witch a female witch, you just call her a witch, while you do call a male witch a male witch. Hence the reason most people think of witches as females, the reason why it made sense to have the three Charmed Ones be females. Right? |
|
|
|
Post by NubianWitch on Mar 3, 2011 22:50:21 GMT -5
As for the artificial insemination argument, I've said it before, I'll say it again: It's artificial. There's no love in that, no union of the male and female (which is beautiful). And artificial or not, it's still insemination. It's still connected to the male sperm, which is an unshakeable requirement, but then if we all decide to make everything about artificial insemination--what happens to men? Oh, so they just become faces on a page, donors, etc., with no relevance except what's inside of their testicles can bring to the birthing table. What happens to boy children, then? They grow up with the idea that they're only worth as much as their sperm, then, I guess and become dejected members of society? Hell no. I don't think so. Love has nothing to do with it. To create, a woman can do it herself. It's something a man can't. But like someone said, we're getting into very sticky waters. So let's just agree that men are not better than women; women are not better than men; they just *different* But due to the ancient not-so-smart customs, women *used to be* considered more powerful. the reason why witches were originally female, hence you never call a witch a female witch, you just call her a witch, while you do call a male witch a male witch. Hence the reason most people think of witches as females, the reason why it made sense to have the three Charmed Ones be females. Right? 'Kay, I guess. I'm just still not content with a lot of these arguments, but, I rest my case. |
|
ljones
Whitelighter
Posts: 4,123
|
Post by ljones on Mar 4, 2011 2:16:55 GMT -5
Then I feel sorry for mankind, if you are right. This only tells me that humanity is incapable of understanding what balance truly means and not to waste its time with a ridiculous herd mentality. Really? How can they do this without the male sperm, naturally or otherwise? |
|
|
|
Post by NubianWitch on Mar 4, 2011 3:27:47 GMT -5
Then I feel sorry for mankind, if you are right. This only tells me that humanity is incapable of understanding what balance truly means and not to waste its time with a ridiculous herd mentality. Really? How can they do this without the male sperm, naturally or otherwise? Ljones, you stole the words right out of my mouth.People seem to not understand that women don't "create" life, they carry and nourish life. Life creates itself, independent of our sense of human entitlement, and men play the part in planting that seed. Does a tree grow on its own, regarding its roots as unimportant? Trees are what's inside of a seed. People are what's inside of a sperm and an egg. |
|
|
|
Post by ghostrider on Mar 4, 2011 5:50:18 GMT -5
I think that men and woman are both equal and unequal depending on the situation. Back in the day, man was the providor...the hunter. Woman were the nurturers, gathering and caring.
When my grandmother was a young woman she and her sisters struggled to vote and not be a broodmare. They won a small war. In my time we fought to receive equal pay for equal work, we won some of that.
The African-American is still fighting some battles, be they male or female. The Latino race is now following their struggle, be they male or female.
Some of what you win depends on what you are fighting for and what you truly want to be happy. I have girl friends that never wanted more that a man to take care of them while they stayed home and raise the children. Maybe they will take a pass on being out in the work force for having a man open a door for them and pull out a chair.
A lot of what you have is what you are willing to work for and change. Some will, some won't.
|
|
Lexi
Familiar
Peek-a-boo...I see you!
Posts: 218
|
Post by Lexi on Mar 4, 2011 6:38:51 GMT -5
I told you, I was extremely tired while I wrote.
The point I was trying to get across is that depending on the situation men and women are not equal. They are built differently and they want different things. And this has always been the same no matter where you look in history.
One example on people trying to get things equal is a woman who tried to complete the Royal Marines Commando course. She finally did it, however, there were allowances so that if she failed one part of the course she didn't have to go right back to the beginning like the men would have to. It was a way to show that men and women can have the chance of being equal - however can they if they make allowances when it comes to knowing that a woman is built differently to a man.
That is all I want to say on the disscusion, and what I was trying to get across before. What people want and how they are built relates to whether men and women can be equal.
I think they *should* but understand why sometimes they *can't*.
|
|
|
|
Post by pppiper on Mar 6, 2011 12:46:54 GMT -5
Billie and Christy's mother wasn't a witch they got their magic from their grandmother, if there is a witch-gene this can jump two or three generations sometimes even more Maybe it'ld be a Warren trait the mother-daughter transmission of the witch-gene If that's the case, explain Wyatt and Chris, especially Chris. Wyatt is explained because he's Twice Blessed. Chris (who should've been Christina the way Wyatt should've been Prudence Melinda) would make sense if he only had whitelighter powers like his father, but he was also a witch with powers. I think the Jenkinses' mother was still a witch; she just didn't have powers. I'll always believe that the powers skipped a generation so all of the powers of that generation would instead be given by their mother's half-siser, Patricia Halliwell, to her daughters, the Charmed Ones, hence the reason why so much of the last season concentrated so much on the Jenkinses - fellow Warrens. Had Grams not bound the sisters' powers, it might have been Prue or Piper who was kidnapped and turned evil. Is that like a fan-theory that you'd quite like to be true, or does the show suggest any of the to be true? It sounds cool mind  |
|
Esmeralda
Charmed
S2 "What If...?"
Fan Fic Winner
Twenty Years Gone....But Never Forgotten.
Posts: 21,920
|
Post by Esmeralda on Mar 6, 2011 18:00:03 GMT -5
If that's the case, explain Wyatt and Chris, especially Chris. Wyatt is explained because he's Twice Blessed. Chris (who should've been Christina the way Wyatt should've been Prudence Melinda) would make sense if he only had whitelighter powers like his father, but he was also a witch with powers. I think the Jenkinses' mother was still a witch; she just didn't have powers. I'll always believe that the powers skipped a generation so all of the powers of that generation would instead be given by their mother's half-siser, Patricia Halliwell, to her daughters, the Charmed Ones, hence the reason why so much of the last season concentrated so much on the Jenkinses - fellow Warrens. Had Grams not bound the sisters' powers, it might have been Prue or Piper who was kidnapped and turned evil. Is that like a fan-theory that you'd quite like to be true, or does the show suggest any of the to be true? It sounds cool mind It was the writers who suggested it to me when they said that magic had skipped over the Jenkinses' mother despite the fact that their mother was a witch, and would make S8 make a little more sense - spending so much time on other Warren witches. |
|
|
|
Post by pppiper on Mar 6, 2011 18:48:09 GMT -5
It would have been really nice, even better if the whole 'secret family' thing hadn't of happened already with Paige. Two lots might of been a bit silly but still, I think that would've been so much better than two random really powerful withces running 'round.
|
|
Esmeralda
Charmed
S2 "What If...?"
Fan Fic Winner
Twenty Years Gone....But Never Forgotten.
Posts: 21,920
|
Post by Esmeralda on Mar 6, 2011 21:25:01 GMT -5
It would have been really nice, even better if the whole 'secret family' thing hadn't of happened already with Paige. Two lots might of been a bit silly but still, I think that would've been so much better than two random really powerful withces running 'round. Oh, I don't think so at all. After all, the entire show was supposed to be all about family. So why not continue that, especially when you have Grams who was married four times? Do you really think she only would've had Patty? You said you thought the idea was cool. I used it as a basis for my own rewrite of Forever Charmed. If you'd like to check it out, I've done two versions. The first includes Piper's daughter Prudence Melinda, called Melinda: Charmed Forever The other is Charmed Forever Without Mel Even if this thread might have spoiled it a bit for you, I hope you decide to check it out anyway - I've never been above shamelessly plugging my own fics! |
|
