Welcome to Gaia! ::

I think this should be posted near all the alternitive religion sections in every book store across America and the World.

....You should totally print it out and then slip it inside books at the bookstore. ninja

This post reminded me that I need to thin out my book collection again.

Good books do have a tendency of disappearing. I started doing like a library check out system with mine. I have the name of the person I lent which book too, and if it isn't back in 3 months I start nagging about it.

I have the same system. Luckily, I have an account on Shelfari and since it keeps a virtual record of my library, I'm able to check a little box that says "loaned" and put in the name of the person who I loaned the item to, including information on the date the book was loaned and the condition of the book. The worst thing about lending a book to someone is getting it back super late and then finding it all torn and tattered.

I started out thinking it was not a good book, when she made up a huge hunk of false history, and then in her notes, admitted that not only had she made it up, but that that was okay. The rest of the book was essentially downhill from there (although the chapter on trancework was of a lot better quality). So it was sort of after reading the Introductions and starting on the first chapter, I began with the impression it was a bad book, but continued reading, trying to give it the benefit of the doubt, because so many people had spoken highly of it, and I'd heard the exercises were good. And many of the exercises are quite good, as is, as I mentioned, the chapter on trances, but they're not worth reading the rest of the book for.

But specifically in terms of sexism, the last chapter in particular was pretty horrific, both against men and women. As a whole the book just piles on little bit after little bit, but the last chapter made me lose what respect I had left for her for a variety of reasons, the sexism one of them. The chapter on her god, too, was really awfully sexist. When your chapter about your god spends more time complaining about "the patriarchy" than actually discussing your god you know you have problems.

A few things in particular throughout the book annoyed me... implying men must have a "womb centre" as if men were spiritually women deep down, or that wombs were necessary, or that men should have spiritual centres in the same place as women as a matter of course. Men have to surrender emotionally and worship at the female pudenda, but women aren't allowed to enjoy BDSM if that's what they're into (because any sort of violence or bondage in sex is bad according to Starhawk). Women who don't sleep with men have "special magicalness" - I'm not even sure what this is meant to imply, but I know I don't like it.

She keeps up this implication throughout that all men are inherently violent rapists or something, which I resent. There's also a strong implication throughout that men are lesser spiritual beings that have to strive harder to connect with goddesses, which I also resent. Example: "he may chase Her forever, and She will elude him, but through the attempt he will grow, until he too learns to find Her within." Seriously?

She renames St John's Wort, because she thinks the name "St John the Conqueror" was overly militaristic and "masculinist", as if there is something inherently wrong with masculinity. She renames it "St Joan's Wort", after a war leader. And then she changes it back to St John's Wort because no one knows which herb she's talking about.

If all the hatred against men wasn't bad enough, the anti-woman stuff is pretty horrific also. If you don't align yourself with her version of womanhood, she disapproves of you. She spends time in ritual shaming both women and men who choose to participate in or partake of pornography. (Apparently those in her ritual won't accept media that tells them to be ashamed of their own bodies, but are happy to shame others who love their bodies enough to share them.) Now I know the 70s was a brutal time for the feminist sex wars, but even so. Shaming women for choosing a different life-path? She also notes in one of her anniversary notes that she expected, in the 70s, that everyone who shared her genitalia would be someone she could trust. As if all women are incapable of lying, and all men are untrustworthy. Generalising entire genders in this way is just not acceptable. She says more than once that a virgin "belongs to no one but herself" as if by sleeping with someone, you automatically become their property. As if women can't own their own sexuality, their own bodies, their own sex lives. The text is littered with this sort of thing.

I mean, it's hard to go through and pick out individual sentences, because it's the accumulation of all of these hateful little implications that build up into the greater sexist whole. Bits like: "Our psychology is one of war between sons and fathers who eternally vie for exclusive possession of the mother, who, like all women under patriarchy, is the ultimate prize for success. " They're just scattered throughout the text, so you can't just overlook an awful chapter and settle back into enjoying the book, because she'll turn around and say something disparaging.