*Sighs* Okay. If I had to sum up this book in one word, it would be 'hypocritical'.
I stumbled upon this book a few weeks a1.5 stars rounded up to 2.
*Sighs* Okay. If I had to sum up this book in one word, it would be 'hypocritical'.
I stumbled upon this book a few weeks ago scrolling through Facebook, as I have a lady on there, potentially one who works for Moon Books, who uploads blurbs of books and covers from the Pagan Portals series, potentially to advertise them. I used to have a lot of issues with men, and was able to, through my spirituality (ironically through the divine feminine, as well as my first boyfriend, and meeting some new male friends), fix a lot of issues with them over the past few years and work around to honouring the male god in my practice again. So, this book did somewhat appeal to me enough to want to read it despite the fact that I raised my eyebrows immediately at this part in the blurb:
"One of the most significant social changes in the 20th-century was the wedge driven between the males and females of Craft as a result of social media and political feminism."
Two things. One, social media... 20th century? Am I missing something here? This stumped me and if I'm just being an idiot I'd love to be corrected, but I'm pretty certain 'social media' is a 21st century invention. From a cursory Google search it seems the first one was 'Six Degrees' in 1997, but I'd wager a guess to say it didn't take off until Myspace in 2004. I'm not sure what social media websites people were supposedly using during 'the rise of political feminism' (strange term, all feminism is political?) that drove a wedge between men and women. She makes no explanation of this anywhere in the book. Two, blaming feminism without also examining misogyny that exists within the various occult movements as well as the misogyny within the general culture for the divide between men and women is deeply unfair and unbalanced.
Which brings me to the meat and potatoes. Draco spends a large chunk of this book showing her biases and whinging about feminism and political correctness. I'm not saying there are no problems with those two concepts (I go back and forth on whether I still identify as a feminist, as today's feminism is rife with issues, and I've been extremely disillusioned by certain 'woke' leftist politics for a few years). She is staunchly pro-Crowley and poo-poos any notion that he may have been even a little bit of a misogynist (the man who said women over 35 should be 'chloroformed'), quotes Woody Allen (a known sexual abuser). She also, to give her a due, does do a pretty good job of going into the history of Christian misogyny and how it affected views towards women for hundreds of years. But what she fails to ever talk about is that a lot of the gynocentric practices in the pagan and occult movements were in response to abuse from male occultists, not just from Christian clergy (as well as in response to abuse from men in general, it wasn't long before this that we had the extreme misogyny of the 50s, and here in the UK women weren't allowed bank accounts until 1975) . It doesn't take a great deal of digging to find stories of countless women discussing being coerced as young women barely out of their teens into uncomfortable sexual practices by older male occultists, as well as misogynistic attitudes within the occult. Let me be very clear, the occult scene is NOT the beacon of respect for women some like to make it out to be when trying to score an ideological slam dunk against Christians. Misogyny is well baked into occultism, and always has been- all male ceremonial fraternities (which isn't a problem in and of itself but there were no such groups for women) seeking to control and harness the power of the feminine for themselves, the view that women were inherently more 'base' than men who were natural ascetics, beliefs influenced by misogynistic ideas held by Aristotle that women were intellectually inferior, and so on. It is not just the Abrahamic religions that have a misogyny problem. The entire 'Western tradition' (and beyond) has been steeped in it since the Ancient Greeks.
That doesn't mean we have to discard the whole thing and I'm constantly rolling my eyes at people who want us to do so, but it does mean that women have a right to want to go and do their own thing. She sneers at Dianic witches and any other feminine-centric group as being unbalanced and misandrist, and doesn't seem to believe it's possible to have an authentic and powerful spiritual tradition without men (which again, is deeply hypocritical considering she gives no such criticism of all-male traditions). Seemingly, she also has a problem with groups that are goddess-oriented even if they do not deny the male god altogether. She tells us several times she believes magic practice should be equally balanced between the masculine and the feminine, man and woman, god and goddess. But, then, she says this:
"One young woman was rabidly misandrous despite the fact that we make no secret of the fact that the Old Craft is unapologetic about being god-oriented and Magister-led in its practices. We were assured that she had no problem with this but only weeks into her training we found that it wasn't possible to hold a conversation or conduct a lesson without her vagina creeping into the equation!"
And, a few pages later:
"Coven of the Scales has always been god/male oriented, which often causes problems with newcomers who believe that the Goddess is 'All'. Call us old fashioned but we still believe in the gender dynamics that have powered witchcraft since time immemorial- and which does not lend itself to gender politics because the differences and similarities between the sexes are all part of understanding the equilibrium of magical working."
So, this is a little confusing. Because the language of 'Magister-led' and 'god/male oriented' implies that in her view the 'Old Craft' is not as egalitarian as she had previously claimed. Perhaps this is just bad writing, and she doesn't realise how this comes across. But even if that is the case, it still doesn't lend itself towards my faith in her skills as a writer. Is her coven equally as goddess and female oriented? Is it equally Dame-led? After that latter quote, she does go onto say on the very next page that both the Dame and Magister need to be able to run the show, and typically the Dame leads the spring and summer rites and the Magister the autumn and winter ones. Cool, that makes sense to me. But then why do these quotes imply that there is a slight lean towards the masculine or a 'benevolent' patriarchal undertone in terms of what is central and leads the coven? Why didn't she say 'we are both god and goddess oriented, and Magister and Dame-led' in the first quote, and 'Coven of the Scales has always been both god/male oriented and goddess/female oriented' in the second?
If we are to take her claims of 'god/male oriented' at face value, then that means there should be no problem, in her view, with women going for traditions that are more 'goddess/female oriented'. But Draco is falling for a patriarchal paradigm that says 'male is the default', whereas female is the aberration. So something being centered more on the male god with an ancillary goddess is the default, it's balanced, it's equal, it's both sides in their Naturally Assigned Roles (see her point in the second quote about 'gender dynamics that have powered witchcraft since time immemorial', is the gender dynamics women worshipping a male god as their main deity and primarily following a male leader?), all is as it should be. But if it's the reverse, if it's centered more on the goddess with an ancillary male god, then it's cruel, unbalanced, dangerous, anti-male feminist misandry. Again, this is taking her 'god/male oriented' comments at face value, and it's possible she didn't mean to imply her tradition was centered more on the male god, but that's certainly how it comes across. I sent those passages to several people to get more opinions and they all agreed with me that that's how it comes across. If her tradition had been equally feminine-led, I doubt this anecdotal feminist young woman would take issue with it.
When it comes to the 'witch-cult hypothesis', there seem to be two opposing camps. One claims it was matriarchal, and worshiped a Great Goddess. One claims it was more patriarchal, and that the Horned God played the most important role. I remember reading somewhere that one of these witch cult scholars claimed that the Priest, embodying the Horned God, would have sex with each of the women and that this wasn't always pleasurable for the women, and that when he'd run out of stamina he would use phallic objects. Granted, I can't find this, now, but I KNOW I read it not too long ago and at the very least, Margaret Murray and Karl Pearson claimed the witch cult was at least patriarchal at the time of the recorded evidence they had access to. Neither of these sides, the matriarchal goddess-centric side, or the patriarchal god-centric side, have ever been fully accepted as the 'correct' one by academia and on the contrary, most academics now seem to dismiss the witch cult idea all together. So, why does Draco think she can speak with 100% authority on exactly what the authentic 'Old Craft' was? I do genuinely believe in many aspects of the hypothesis, and maybe it was more god-centric and patriarchal at the time of the witch-cults Murray studied (potentially due to patriarchy being in full swing at that point in most of the world, or, perhaps ironically, Christian influence), but since that cannot be proven I see now problem with, for example, the Dianics taking a more matriarchal and feminine-friendly approach. And even if it could be proven beyond a shadow of doubt that the 'Old Craft' was more male-god oriented than goddess-oriented, women have a RIGHT to create new traditions for themselves that don't place them in a submissive or ancillary role. I am guessing that Draco's claims about the 'Old Craft' being 'god-centric' come from the theory that the witch cult of Europe was god-centric with the goddess not playing a large role. A friend of mine, who has roots in Italian tradcraft, told me it's a misconception that the male-god has to play a more important role in a witches life and says there are numerous stories about witches being initiated by fairy queens.
Not long after the latter chapter she says this, which, removed from the context of the whole book, is an amazing quote and one I very much concur with:
Since the millennium, however, there has been an overwhelming intellectual stagnation that has become the vanguard of modern paganism and this is now reflected in a great deal Craft instruction of the present day. So many people, who should be on the same side, squabble over details over which path is superior without recognising that ever tradition teaches differently. And that change is inevitable if we want the Craft to survive.
And growth is very important to pagan thought. It's okay to be using a certain stepping stones of ideology for a while but if we remain in the same mindset at 80 years of age, or 60, or 40 as we were at 20, what have we actually learned along the way? How much have we grown spiritually? And how much of an impact can we make when we dismiss something because we have proclaimed to understand it fully while never recognising the difficulties and importance of its impact on current Craft lifestyle?
This is great! I totally agree. So then, why are some of the first pages of this book mean-spirited attacks on paths she doesn't agree with? Why, also, does she then, in the very next paragraph, completely disparage Millennials for not wanting to join her coven because they don't agree with some of its ideology, or wanting to modernise certain aspects of the Craft (likely those they find misogynistic), and having absolutely nothing nice to say about them, whilst completely praising Gen X and Baby Boomers? It comes across very stuffy, very ageist, very 'kids these days'. I do actually agree with some of her assessment of millennials but tarring all of us with the same brush whilst singing the praises of older generations, who also have their issues, seems unfair. And considering she also JUST said that the community needs to be able to adapt and not be afraid of new ideas, it seems massively contradictory. There truly is a huge amount of Millennial and Gen Z witches and pagans who want every coven, every moot, every social gathering, every festival to 100% validate their Tumblr-curated or Tiktok-curated worldview and will poo-poo anyone and anything that doesn't share their views. I agree with her there. But I would argue refusing to join a coven because it doesn't align with your values is not the same as refusing to socialise with real-life pagans at all because they don't align with all of your values.
Finishing off the negative portion with other stuff I didn't like, fire round:
- Some parts were repeated almost verbatim - She uses 'feminism' in place of 'misandry' - There were an awful lot of biographies about random occultists
But, to be fair, I'm giving this a two star rating for a reason. Whilst I would've preferred more on sex magic and not long ramblings about politically correct feminists, man haters and millennials, the sex magic stuff that was present was a great primer for me, a beginner, which is where this Pagan Portals series shines. Draco also says on more than one occasion that sex magic should never be something people are coerced into doing, be that physically or mentally by claiming it's not possible to be properly initiated without it. Given the abuses people went through in covens during the 70s occult revival and sexual revolution, this was important to note. She also criticises people who view sex magic as merely a fetish and not a way to cultivate spiritual strength and achieve one's goals, who show up to covens giddy and excited about the idea of getting off with a bunch of strangers because they watched 'Eyes Wide Shut' one too many times. She says that sex magic is best practiced alone or with a long term partner who you trust, which I appreciated. There was a great quote somewhere (that wasn't hers, it was from a Patheos blog) criticising spiritual bypassing and stating that 'negative' emotions such as anger can and do play a role in witchcraft and can be alchemised into positive change.
But, the lists of positives is too short for me to recommend this book to... anyone, really. I'll be seeking out other books on sex magic, polarity magic and spiritually healing the rifts between men and women in the future....more
I thought I was going to end this year without rating a single book five stars. This changed that, and may in fact be, in my opinion, the most importaI thought I was going to end this year without rating a single book five stars. This changed that, and may in fact be, in my opinion, the most important book I've ever read.
Sure, I already agreed with most of her points, but I wasn't sure *why*. They were intuitive feelings I held once as a teenager, and regained in recent years when I began questioning the liberal feminist, progressive, 'sex positive' dogma on sex that I'd been fed for years. And that's actually a point she makes- a lot of us intuitively *know* a lot of this stuff, we don't need academia to justify it. But today's society tells us we should. We should do-away with our stuffy monogamy, our 'kink shaming', our aspirations of marriage and family.
When I expressed my desire to read this book I had one person reach out to me to try and dissuade me because the author was 'problematic' (has conservative leanings). I ignored them and read it anyway, done with being told by the authoritarian left what I am and aren't allowed to engage with.
Earlier in this year, frustrated with being single and deeply lonely, ashamed of my lack of intimate experience, an older millennial cousin gave me some very bad advice that I gratefully didn't follow: have casual sex. This woman isn't necessarily a progressive or a liberal, and is deeply apolitical. How I wish I could persuade her to read this book so she would understand why I was so repulsed by that suggestion.
There's a lot that can be said about this book, things I deeply loved, but my favourite has to be the section on marriage. As a feminist, for years I'd been told marriage was bad for women, that it enabled abuse, that it was invented to control female sexuality. Deep inside, I rejected this narrative, while paying some lip service to the parts of the argument that were admittedly either hard to argue with our just demonstrably true. I now am able to put in to words *why* I reject it: because the reverse is true. If marriage is designed to curtail anyone's sexuality, it's mens, and protects women.
I need more feminists and liberals to read this book. Most of Perry's audience are antifeminist people on the political Christian right and I'd be willing to put money on a guess that this is being used against her by progressives. But I don't think that would be the case. I think plenty of feminists would agree with most or all of the ideas expressed in this book if they actually read it, but the progressive left often discourages people from reading 'problematic' 'cancelled' authors, or familiarising themselves with ideas of those they disagree with. However, if genuine feminists (and not just liberal misogynists paying lip service to feminism) gave this a chance I strongly believe it would resonate with many of them and Perry's audience would balance itself out.
This is the feminism I've been looking for. Disillusioned years ago with liberal feminism, disagreeing with enough elements of radical feminism that it wasn't the right fit, I turned to cultural feminism, and while that's still roughly where I'd place myself enough of it is still tied in with elements of radical feminism I disagree with that it still wasn't a perfect fit for me. But whatever Perry's brand of feminism is, that's me. A common-sense feminism. A feminism combining the best of traditional and progressive values. A feminism that benefits the largest amount of women, not just the rich, protected ones (liberal feminism) or childfree female separatists (radical feminism). A feminism for the issues we face as women today, with the hindsight of our past mistakes to guide us....more
Cute book with some interesting information on some cool women from the past I hadn't heard of before, but it's very much the kind of feminism you leaCute book with some interesting information on some cool women from the past I hadn't heard of before, but it's very much the kind of feminism you learn when you're 16 and first deciding to call yourself a feminist (making fun of 'moon cuppy, man hating' feminists, etc). There was also some romanticizing of some very problematic women which they did address in the afterward, stating that they weren't saying the women were perfect, but when it comes to literal white supremacists I think it would have been best to just leave them out. ...more
One of the better books I've read about our Heavenly Mother. This does not demote Her to a personification of the Earth or the Moon and does Her justiOne of the better books I've read about our Heavenly Mother. This does not demote Her to a personification of the Earth or the Moon and does Her justice as a Creator-Deity in Her own right. Also includes some beautiful testimonies and experiences people have had when calling on Her. I love the name 'Azna' for Her, too. My only complaint is that I wish it were longer!...more
When you open this book for the first time, please do so with an open mind.
Indeed, the first time I attempted it, I clung so desperately to the anarchWhen you open this book for the first time, please do so with an open mind.
Indeed, the first time I attempted it, I clung so desperately to the anarchist and modern liberal feminist theory I'd believed in heart and soul since my mid teenage years that I just felt angry with it. It wasn't until I went in to this with the perspective of a child yearning for a fairytale life, before all my misguided convictions about the 'real world' began to take root in my heart, that I was able to truly appreciate it.
I certainly do not agree with some of the ideas expressed in this book. But at its heart, it expresses what I think I have always believed in the deepest, most essential part of my soul, about civilization, society, and human nature.
The incredible thing about this particular work that makes it stand out from other traditionalist works is it approaches traditional cosmology from an eternal feminine perspective (as the title suggests). The book even goes in to this in some detail, stating how traditionalism is often harmful to women. But if one takes the evidence presented by Trent, the realization sets in that 'true' traditionalism is infact feminine, and not masculine, centred. Nothing in true traditionalism implies women are meerly the helpmeets of men or the secondary sex. Quite the opposite. The idea is presented, backed up with a lot of research and just plain common sense, that masculinized traditionalism exists because society has strayed so far from the primordial, feminine, traditional truth.
An eye opening read, even if I took issue with some of it....more
This book would be four or five stars if it hadn't fell in to some of the traps I feel a lot of Goddess spirituality books fall in to with some of theThis book would be four or five stars if it hadn't fell in to some of the traps I feel a lot of Goddess spirituality books fall in to with some of these strawman arguments: Goddess worship must be earth-based, Sky god(desses) are bad, the goddess is the moon and never the sun, belief in Heaven is bad (even if it's Universal?), the Goddess must be naked to signify fertility, etc. As someone who worships God the Mother in both Her trascendant ('sky'/Heavenly form) and Earthly form, it can feel a little bit isolating and off-putting that so many Goddess worship books promote these ideas. It can feel like how I worship Her is being invalidated. I know I'm not alone in this, either. Isis for example, who the author mentions had a (near-monotheistic) cultus that rivalled Christianity in popularity, was a 'sky' deity.
However, despite the above issues, this book was wonderful in that it was unapologetic, well-researched, substantiated and funny to boot. It was entertaining to read as well as informative. She doesn't only explain why the war gods we worship are harmful to society, she pokes fun at them. Like how she describes our Goddess-loving ancestors, this book is 'daring, creative and playful.' This will become something that I refer to time and time again, and recommend it to whoever I can. Return to a peaceful, Goddess-based society (however She is worshipped) is necessary for our survival....more
Loading...
