Women and Men, Their Roles in Magic Options

Greetings! (PS the title may be too limiting...go nuts!)
This was a bud starting to form in the Abramelin thread.
It was stated that women should be excluded from the Abramelin working.
It was remarked upon about that this was a prevalent attitude in Western esoteric traditions.
I maintain (whether right or wrong) that this practice takes place all around the world and that Magic can be dictated by the sex of the user. Women and Men handle/channel energy differently....
So, what are your thoughts?
Is this merely an attitude foisted off on us by the patriarchal church? Or does it stem from something alittle more basic?
Do tell us your opinions, theories or thoughts about this! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

this is an issue of dogma clashing with reality.

Is it a sweeping generalization to say that no one can breathe in space? Or that everyone will drown if held underwater long enough? Or that everyone has blood in their veins? There are certain functional absolutes in existence. These are not sweeping generalizations like value judgements of a race, gender, orientation, etc.

Why does the statement of differences between men and women arouse such indignation from women? No one is suggesting (except possibly the author of the Book of Abramelin) that women are less than men. Its like saying red is less than blue. And yet many women - not just you two, but most women in my life - take offense to that suggestion that the sexes are fundamentally different. Almost everyone everywhere agrees on this, and it is readily observable in everyday life, everywhere, even in places where men and women play the same roles. So why be so offended?

unfortunately sweeping generalizations about the absoluteness of physical, spiritual, or psychological gender are almost always ill informed, and reflective of a strong social undercurrent that everything has to fit inside it's organizational box, or be killed for being a freak.

in space gravity keeps the air from escaping the earths surface, so in an exoatmospheric orbit, out in space, there is none left to breath...
in gender, largely sexist religious forces keep equality or variance or diversity from existing in their followers' paradigm of reality, so there is no variability or diversity left to breath...

in an earlier post it was said:

I have to disagree with physical gender being a sliding scale. An individual, even if born with both sexual organs, will only functionally be male or female - able to produce seed, or become pregnant, or neither but retaining hormone producing gonads of only one gender.

which is simply scientifically incorrect. google "ovitestis" for more on that. or get some books on hermaphroditism or intersexuality.

further, I am myself completely infertile, and so by your definition I would have no gender at all.

further, while true hermaphroditism is very rare, cross-gender development is relatively more common. For example, in an XY male who has the 'male gene' on the Y chromosome (not all Y chromosomes do, resulting in XY females)... if said male has a rare genetic flaw which causes him to lack the receptor sites for testosterone in his cell walls, then 'it' will grow up completely female, with functional female genitalia, and have no clue whatsoever that they're not genetically female until they see a doctor in early adulthood to figure out why their ovaries aren't making eggs. So what do you tell such a person? "oh, well you've always been female, you dressed up like ariel the mermade on halloween when you were 6, you dated boys, you lost your virginity with scott while camping your senior year of high school, you have normal female genitalia, breasts, normal female build, soft skin, hips which hinge for childbirthing, etc. but oh by the way, the reason you've been failing to get pregnant is that you're a man" ?? get real. Do you think such a person would be yin or yang? seriously, setting aside the "oh my god we can't have any freaks allowed" thinking, seriously do you think such a person would be more yin or yang?

female is the default human condition. maleness is caused by a single small gene (usually) found on the Y chromosome, which causes a hormonal cascading effect, resulting in many many genetic characteristics developing in either a male or female direction. And things go wrong all the time. The result is that most people are not super-masculine or super-feminine, but a blend which is less exagerated. And some people are interspersed through the middle ground.

Yes, to have fully reproductive gonads of 'both' genders, would require a case of genetic variation between two parts of the body, (which incidentally is the sort of anomaly which causes freckles), but it is very rare to have that occur with the gonads, and gonads generally don't 'work' in any sort of hormonally confused environment, resulting in most highly intersexed people being infertile.

The problem here is this: the belief that there are absolutely 2 genders, and no middleground allowed, is simply scientifically wrong. But it is a belief held by a vast majority of human beings, mostly in the western monotheist cultures. the problem is the motivation behind such thinking. We live in a culture which until the french enlightenment, and largely until this past century, would simply euthanize someone who was severely intersexed... why? why does it simply HAVE to be absolute black & white? why must gay people be shunned or killed?
unfortunately, the answer is not one which favors gender equality or rationalism.

you're putting things into generalized boxes, and they simply don't always fit. they usually do, but not always. and frankly there are people who should be offended by the collective social gender paradigm we have in our culture.

I am not personally offended at all, your views are the views of 90% of the people in this culture. arguing a point doesn't mean that someone is offended, it means they believe in their point. in counterpoint I would ask: "why is it that every time a woman disagrees with gender paradigm status quo, that they must be considered to be offended, or in other words behaving emotionally instead of rationally?"
in debate we'd call that sort of thing 'below the belt'. it's an effective technique, but it has precious little to do with the subject being debated.
so are women indignant emotional creatures who aren't seeing the facts? or is that just an easy way to compartmentalize their input where it conflicts with your own world view?
again, I'd reiterate that I am not offended, and I'm speaking sincerely and without sarcasm or malice here. I kinda feel like you opened a can of worms, and I'm just saying "ok, well lets look closely at these worms shall we?" when frankly I'd rather have left well enough alone and not handled any worms.

I don't really want to run in the special olympics here, I am carrying on this debate under a premise of respect for your intellect & ability to discuss things rationally. And I'm perfectly willing to overlook the "you womens is just bein uppity" tact, as long as it was a one time thing.

This post has been edited by Kath: Nov 10 2009, 01:25 PM

this is an issue of dogma clashing with reality.
unfortunately sweeping generalizations about the absoluteness of physical, spiritual, or psychological gender are almost always ill informed, and reflective of a strong social undercurrent that everything has to fit inside it's organizational box, or be killed for being a freak.

In terms of physical gender, we mean male and female. In terms of psychological or spiritual gender, male/female is a purely social thing, and is a mistreatment of the term as it applies to occult sciences - Gender in this particular discussion only applies to physical gender; what I said before about the nature of spiritual and psychological 'gender' has to do with the elements of those respective planes which we call gender because of their functional similarity. To suggest that an individual can be more psychologically 'male' or 'female' psychologically reflects a basic misunderstanding of gender on the mental plane - it's confusing physical gender psychological profiles with mental gender, and these are not the same thing. Ditto for spiritual gender. Psychologically and Spiritually everyone possesses both genders - with one or the other they would not function.

which is simply scientifically incorrect. google "ovitestis" for more on that. or get some books on hermaphroditism or intersexuality.

further, I am myself completely infertile, and so by your definition I would have no gender at all.

On the contrary, by my 'definition' you are still female.

I have to disagree with physical gender being a sliding scale. An individual, even if born with both sexual organs, will only functionally be male or female - able to produce seed, or become pregnant, or neither but retaining hormone producing gonads of only one gender.

further, while true hermaphroditism is very rare, cross-gender development is relatively more common. For example, in an XY male who has the 'male gene' on the Y chromosome (not all Y chromosomes do, resulting in XY females)... if said male has a rare genetic flaw which causes him to lack the receptor sites for testosterone in his cell walls, then 'it' will grow up completely female, with functional female genitalia, and have no clue whatsoever that they're not genetically female until they see a doctor in early adulthood to figure out why their ovaries aren't making eggs. So what do you tell such a person? "oh, well you've always been female, you dressed up like ariel the mermade on halloween when you were 6, you dated boys, you lost your virginity with scott while camping your senior year of high school, you have normal female genitalia, breasts, normal female build, soft skin, hips which hinge for childbirthing, etc. but oh by the way, the reason you've been failing to get pregnant is that you're a man" ?? get real. Do you think such a person would be yin or yang? seriously, setting aside the "oh my god we can't have any freaks allowed" thinking, seriously do you think such a person would be more yin or yang?

In the case of ovitestis and true hermaphroditism, there is not one recorded case in which an individual developed functionally as both genders. And this is an area upon which there has been a great deal of scrutiny directed because of its anomalous nature.

In this particular case of cross gender development, we're talking about a person who apparently possesses ovaries, wether or not they are making eggs, whose endocrine system is effectively a female endocrine system, whose physical body has developed as a female biological system - so we're talking about a female. Genetics play all sorts of crazy games - but being a chimera and having more than one set of genetic code in your tissues does not make you two people either. If a person's endocrine system is functionally female, then they are functionally female. I'm not suggesting anything at all about genetics, because that is not the hinge - or if it is, we haven't proven it yet. You yourself said there are XY females as well. If this individual is in the same condition but is enable to process estrogen properly and instead developes with a functionally male endocrine system, then they are male.

As far as yin and yang, this is a mistreatment, again, of a term that is not well presented to a western mind. Men are not more yang than women, nor are women more in than men. Yin and Yang represent masculine and feminine changes in nature, not sex.

female is the default human condition. maleness is caused by a single small gene (usually) found on the Y chromosome, which causes a hormonal cascading effect, resulting in many many genetic characteristics developing in either a male or female direction. And things go wrong all the time. The result is that most people are not super-masculine or super-feminine, but a blend which is less exagerated. And some people are interspersed through the middle ground.

Again, feminine and masculine are concepts which do not play into physical gender, but are subject elements instead referring to social norms for physical gender behavior.

Even in 'third gender' intersexed individuals, there is still and internal division between physically male elements and physically female elements. No perfect blend constituting a true third gender has ever been recorded.

Yes, to have fully reproductive gonads of 'both' genders, would require a case of genetic variation between two parts of the body, (which incidentally is the sort of anomaly which causes freckles), but it is very rare to have that occur with the gonads, and gonads generally don't 'work' in any sort of hormonally confused environment, resulting in most highly intersexed people being infertile.

But still having a function male or female endocrine system, affecting development of the brain to such a degree that from an internal perspective that individual is still functionally one or the other.

The problem here is this: the belief that there are absolutely 2 genders, and no middleground allowed, is simply scientifically wrong. But it is a belief held by a vast majority of human beings, mostly in the western monotheist cultures. the problem is the motivation behind such thinking. We live in a culture which until the french enlightenment, and largely until this past century, would simply euthanize someone who was severely intersexed... why? why does it simply HAVE to be absolute black & white? why must gay people be shunned or killed?

I'll assume you don't know that I'm gay and overlook that comment. That aside, appearance/anotomy vs. physiology is what is really the issue when it comes to states of intersex. So far, there is no functionally male/female blend of physiology, regardless of anatomy. The two simply don't develop together, won't develop together. Although there is a great deal of research and documentation of various anatomical intersexed cases, there is so far no accessible medical research detailing cases in which an individual was physiologically functionally male and female.

What I'm saying here is not that there are not degrees of combination, but that ultimately there is an absolute point of division, a point at which your are on one side of this point or the other. And that functionally we have to identify that point for what it is. Degrees of anatomical exception still do not equate a sliding scale of gender.

unfortunately, the answer is not one which favors gender equality or rationalism.

That is simply not true. The defining of gender and sex in now way supports gender inequality, nor does it exclude rationalism. When these differences are taken as values rather than raw empirical traits, that is when matters of equality come into play. The differences between genders are what makes them complementary and functional, if it were not for one or the other, nothing would exist. If male and female were functionally the same, there would be no dynamic tension between them to generate creative growth - or any growth at all for that matter.

you're putting things into generalized boxes, and they simply don't always fit. they usually do, but not always. and frankly there are people who should be offended by the collective social gender paradigm we have in our culture.

There again, this is not a matter of social paradigm - social paradigm has to do with percieved notions of how individuals of either gender should behave, and has nothing to do with the actual differences between the genders, and the concordant innate tendencies of either gender. I am not, and have not, suggested anything regarding and kind of social view on gender roles, gender based behavior norms, or anything along the lines of any kind of social paradigm. I'm discussing mechanics while you seem to be discussing civil rights.

I am not personally offended at all, your views are the views of 90% of the people in this culture. arguing a point doesn't mean that someone is offended, it means they believe in their point. in counterpoint I would ask: "why is it that every time a woman disagrees with gender paradigm status quo, that they must be considered to be offended, or in other words behaving emotionally instead of rationally?"

Perhaps I misinterpreted both you and aphrodite's responses as harboring a sense of indignation at my own expression of what I have observed and understood the differences between genders to be. I'll thank you to know that I live in the south, and my views on gender do not come close to meeting 90% of the average individual in my region at least. However, in my long and vast experience with women of many different cultures, ethnicities, and conditions, I have never met a woman who once could discuss the basic differences between men and women without the subject of gender inequality arising - either in context to the coversation content itself, or as a quality males are stereotypically said to possess (chauvanism). As an example, in this very discussion, gender has been divorced from empirical observation and natural order, which does not judge value, and been expanded, by you and by Aphrodite, into a matter of gender social paradigm. Although social paradigm may have been the reason that women who - and I have to correct myself from a previous remark on the Abramelin operation - are not virgins are considered in that particular grimoire 'unfit' to practice the Abramelin operation, my own examination of the possible reasoning for this was expanded to consider also the raw differences between the genders as a more general approach to what is a common remark in medieval grimoires.

We can make the assumption that it was simply to keep women out of magic that this remark was made, and of course we know that ancient tauted value of virgin maidens in so many cultures, and we can argue about why the man practicing this magic does not have to be a virgin - but that is just an assumption and in matters of the occult we should also expand our examination to include other possible reasons as well. Perhaps there are exclusively female occult arts as well - there were certainly female centered mystery religions in ancient greece and egypt, and there is a branch of taoist spiritual tantra practiced exclusively by females, so its not as though it is universally thought that women were unable to practice magic.

in debate we'd call that sort of thing 'below the belt'. it's an effective technique, but it has precious little to do with the subject being debated.
so are women indignant emotional creatures who aren't seeing the facts? or is that just an easy way to compartmentalize their input where it conflicts with your own world view?

Comment in question:

I’m just sensitive to these stereotypes, because I tend to be the only women in my hobbies, and work, and I don’t like to be seen/judged as less than or not what a women is or refused something at work because of my sex and that “we think differently”.

My advice is to meet more women and be more open minded. Clear your mind of judgmental and stereotypical categories of people.

This discussion has nothing to do with stereotypes, and no stereotypes were expressed. This comment effectively came out of no where, and without context outside of how a reasonable argument presented was construed to be a value judgement on women, despite the fact that everyone here has stated explicitly that their opinion on the existence and function of gender in no way implies a value judgement for or against either. I'll grant that it has less to do with being a woman or emotional or any such thing, in having this particular response, and more to do with social experience and conditioning, and I'll grant that women by and large tend to have similar experiences do to the gender inequality of our own culture. However, whether by innate tendancies of experience -> response, or by social conditioning, I have never, ever, had a conversation like this with a man - you would not be surprised how often the subject of gender comes up in my life, being gay and having as many transgendered peers as I do - on any scale, who responded with anything similar. Granted, that may just as likely be because our social gender paradigm reflects a male bias. All I said questioned was why it was in my experience that women tend to take this topic in that direction. indignation is, to my experience, an almost universal response. It becomes an "I can do whatever you can do" conversation instead of a simple discussion of the basic differences inherent to gender, which has nothing to do with what one gender can accomplish versus the other, outside of pure biological function - which is again, not a reflection of ability.

again, I'd reiterate that I am not offended, and I'm speaking sincerely and without sarcasm or malice here. I kinda feel like you opened a can of worms, and I'm just saying "ok, well lets look closely at these worms shall we?" when frankly I'd rather have left well enough alone and not handled any worms.

I don't really want to run in the special olympics here, I am carrying on this debate under a premise of respect for your intellect & ability to discuss things rationally. And I'm perfectly willing to overlook the "you womens is just bein uppity" tact, as long as it was a one time thing.

Well I appreciate your patience. Perhaps I spoke out of line making that comment, which isn't directly relevant to this discussion. I personally dislike it when a reasoned discussion is taken out of context and made a matter of value or judgement rather than a comparison and examination of experience and observation, and in this case probably social history as well.

Now, Bym says, as well as the topic of the title suggests, that this is about the role of women in magic, and how/why/if they are able to perform some kinds and not others - and in the topic title we add "from the judeo-christian standpoint". But, perhaps that is too limiting - in history as I said there are such things as magic exclusive to females. Why not broaden the discussion to include how/why/if males are able to perform certain kinds of magic and not others?

Rather than state simply that men and women can both practice all forms of magic, why not consider the various mechanics at work behind genders, and try to understand rather what kinds of magic works better for men or for women? I said before that I agree that anyone can channel any energy (providing of course necessary connection, training, etc.) but if I need to accomplish something, and I can use either an energy that flows very strong for me or an energy that does not flow as strong for me, am I not going to choose that energy which I know I can rely on? I can grasp and channel the energy of male sexuality (an element of differentiation within a more inclusive current of cosmic sexual energy), and I can do the same with the energy of female sexuality - but the male energetic component moves more easily with me because it is more deeply connected to my being, it resonates with experience encoded into my waking consciousness, and in my physical experience. The female component is more alien and therefore I do not integrate it as closely.

We can reach new experiences through energy, but if that energy does not resonate with some element of our being then we can only do so much with it, we can only handle it to a certain degree, and we can only integrate it so far. This is basic mechanics for energy workers. Its easy to say that you can integrate any energy, or that any energy moves as strongly for you as any other, but realistically this just isn't so - if you were looking at an object, and could see part of it but not other parts, you would know what you were not seeing, at least that you were not seeing some part of it. When it comes to energy, it is easier to assume that what we have in our grasp is the entirety of that current's potential, because energy can be divided into infinite subdivisions. What you are holding is effectively a complete current in an of itself.

This mechanic applies to all levels of experience, which are combinations of currents encoded as experience so that we can retain them in our being and have access to them for their own value, as well as the recombination of them with other currents in the process of creation/creativity. Those currents which are in resonance with experience are more completely integrated for us, whereas those currents not in resonance with experience integrate less completely - the result is that we can direct those resonant currents better than we can those which are not. Because there are basic experiential differences between men and women, there are basic currents which a man will be able to better wield than a woman, and that women are better able to wield than men.

It follows then that there are magical operations, applications and employment of various energetic currents through one kind of magical act or another, which each gender will show a more natural aptitude for than the other.

So then, as there is a special caveat given in the Abramelin operation, the real question becomes - why must the woman attempting this operation be a virgin, but not the man?

peace

This post has been edited by Vagrant Dreamer: Nov 10 2009, 08:38 PM