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)

I haven't found any restrictions on dealing with spirits, etc. I avoid magic at That Time of the Month, but pain is a good barrier to concentration, so that's nothing major there. *shrug*

I think a lot of this attitude comes from Father Church. There was serious debate up until about the 10th century or so whether or not women even had souls!!! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/badmood.gif) Fortunately that was resolved as yes, we do. *sigh* But women are still barred from the priesthood in the Catholic Church despite being able to be clergy in the Protestant denominations, so some of this bias is still there.

I think the other half of it comes from women's duties up until modern times. Women were trapped in a pregnancy/birth/nursing/child care cycle until the advent of modern birth control. If you were one of those women lucky enough to not be able to have kids, then you also ran into legal problems as there was no one to inherit your property when you died. If you're popping out a kid every other year and raising a litter of others, only one or two of which would survive to adulthood in those days, you had no time to study magic, religion, or indeed much of anything else. Given that the life expectancy back then was only about 35, there wasn't much time to do much of anything except grow food and raise kids.

Things have changed radically in the last century and a lot of the old restrictions and taboos turned out to be nothing at all. Society has changed but the old texts date from a time when the way of life we have now would not only be utterly alien, but unimaginable given the tools they had then. So I wouldn't take the restrictions too seriously. The worst that can happen is nothing--maybe the system in question won't work for you, but then again, this forum is littered with '$magicsystem failed, should I find another' posts. People should keep trying--after all, what is magic about but pushing boundaries back and seeing what is *really* hidden in those dark corners?

firstly, I wasn't offended at all bym (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) sorry if my text-tone came across that way. I was just pointing out a disagreement with the abramelin attitude regarding gender. Frankly if i were elderly or a child I would disagree in those veins too. I personally chalk up this 'restriction' in that text, to reflect 2 things. 1) I think it reflects a desperate grab for 'mystique', to make the working seem more impressive & cool. By this I mean it as a gimmick, exactly the same as someone insisting that you sign a waiver that you don't have a heart condition before seeing a scary movie... its not real, its advertising. 2) I think it reflects some very limited and skewed ideas about gender which were prevalent at the time.

Anyway, all I meant by my comment, was that when people see an abstract obstacle placed in front of them, like in the abramelin text, most people 'whine' about it, saying that it is unfair or punitive. I for one believe this to be a victim mentality, which I don't really adhere to. So instead my reaction would be to just smash the obstacle, do the forbidden thing, and say "see?".

I don't think this needs to be in fight-club personally, but I could see some people getting angry in a thread like this, so perhaps it is wise to leave it here.
that said...

In yogik and tantrik practices there are different roles for men and women in ritual. Some of this related to concepts about how energy flows slightly differently for each, sort of a yin/yang thing. However, I don't believe that women are 'prohibited' from any tantrik practice role (I can't speak for the other forms of yoga). As women are generally pretty well venerated within tantra, and most realize that in both genders there exists both yin and yang, and that energy flows can be controlled or manipulated. In vedic practice, I think you find the only 'thorough' exploration of the energetic differences between man and woman.

In western practices, I don't think any of gender-related dogma is reflective of a genuine and studied difference between male and female in terms of their energy body. Instead it is typically simply the result of rampant chauvanism. Not that there is no such thing as chauvanism in the east, but in the west it started within mesopotamia, and spread in a traceable pattern across the western world, greatly influencing the western paradigm until the late 20th century, when it was largely replaced with a more rational approach (not that there aren't still vestigial remnants about).

I don't see anything in abramelin magick which does anything to explore the differences between genders beyond simply grouping 'women' with children and the elderly in terms of their competence and frailty. Frankly, on a battlefield that would make some sense, but magically speaking, women are at least as competent, and some feel even have an edge.

Also, strict gender guidelines greatly miss a point. And that is that we are all different, and we don't all fit stereotypes.

One of the greatest warriors and military leaders in french history, for example, is a woman named Joan.

Another more modern example, is that once, i had a 5'6" 120lb off duty cop explain to me that women shouldn't be allowed to be police officers because they are small and weak, and pepper mace doesn't always do the trick, that you had to be a strong tough-guy to properly handle resistant criminals, and making women police officers would only get people shot because they can't fend for themselves physically. All of which might have made a little sense in some contexts, but this was basically a 'short-guy machismo-rant'. We were all seated at a bar, so I don't think he noticed my size very well, besides, I use a bit of glamoury to seem smaller than I am. Anyway, I'm very large for a girl, some definite viking DNA involved I think. I don't really like physical confrontation, or drawing attention to my stature, but this guy was a real jerk and I very much wanted to shut him up. So i got up, and told him to try to subdue me, nothing violent, just show me a police 'take down' move. When he stood up and realized that the top of his head didn't quite reach my shoulders, he became kinda antagonistic. He then said without thinking (and it was very funny) that "size doesn't matter if you know what you're doing!". Yeah he really said that, and then he turned beet red. Anyway he was not able to subdue me, even though I'm a girl and he's a boy. The difference in strength & mass was just too great. Though I will admit that if he had been 'very' skilled, then perhaps he could have subdued me... but he wasn't. And the point of his rant was not really about the necessary abilities to be an effective police officer, but simply a rationale for condescension, for the purposes of bolstering his own weak ego. A weak ego which I probably made weaker, and really if he had been a little less bile-filled in his attitudes & tone, I would have left well enough alone.

Also, I will point out that there are not '2' genders... gender is really more of a scale ranging from 'very female' on one end to 'very male' on the other, and people exist on this scale in an inverse bell curve, such that most people are lumped together at the two ends. But there are human beings distributed all along the whole scale. Actually there are 2 such scales, one for persona-energy-spirit, and one for the physical body. The result is that a very female body can contain a very male energy patterning & psyche, and vice versa. Further, there are people who are physically 'intersexed', some of them to a point that they much more resemble the gender opposite their 'genetic' gender, and don't even find out that they are genetically of the other gender until they are adults and seek medical help to make babies. So there is no such thing as a black & white male/female world. but a pair of inverse bell curves which does create two main groupings. A fact very deliberately overlooked by the gay-bashing segment of our monotheist culture.

Lastly, I would point out that even within a very typical example of a particular gender, energy bodies 'vary'. For example, my own energy body is very atypical, I find that the 7 chakra model in veda is more or less useless for me. In response to this, I have gotten every vedic mystic under the sun always tell me it's a problem with my perception or a blockage, refusing to believe that something could exist outside their strictly dogmatic model for the energy body. Of course, meeting some vedic practicioners in person, I was able to demonstrate my point, and get at least a few people to relent from their "oh god no, you can't possibly exist outside our model!" viewpoint. Basically, my energy body lacks the lower chakras. Actually the whole vedic energy body model fits me rather poorly, my energy body is MUCH more reflective of a Tan T'ien 3-chakra model, with the only exception being that I would move the sacral chakra up to the solar plexus. Frankly abnormalities in the lower chakras are common among 'chronic, genuine, psi vamps'. I say chronic & genuine, because there are plenty of ingenuine ones, and plenty of temporary ones. Anyway, the point being that I don't really 'generate' energy, drawing up from the root. Instead I 'access' energy in a more lateral fashion (though not from other people anymore). Basically I could channel 'whatever' energy and it's not gender dependent. Add to this the fact that I have made several "energy body modifications" over the years... and well, it just gets really hard for me to see eye to eye with those who insist that everything has to be a certain way, and everyone should sit politely inside their labeled boxes. I for one do not hold to a cookie-cutter mentality towards the spirit and/or energy body.

As with most things in this universe, diversity is the first rule, and the second rule is change. Both of which fly in the face of strict standardized approaches.

Just noting on the sexism apparent in the texts as you mentioned, partly thought that you advocated it in saying that men and women think diffrently wheseas in my opinion occultism follows universal law and hence there is no distiction between the two sexes.

I disagree.
Men and women do think differently on many different levels. This has to affect the way they do Magic.
Perhaps we have a disagreement about your use of the term 'Universal Law'.
As noted in many occult texts by many sources, women handle energy very differently than men. Yes, there are forms of Magic that
do not vary between the sexes but when 'channeling' energy they differ quite abit. Crowley and others of the more popular occult orders used to search out women of specific astrological signs in order to utilize them in materializing phenomena. Michael Bertiaux and the inner OTO utilize women in order to produce various 'kalas' for use in any variety of occult uses. Menstral blood etc. cannot be manifested by a male. Period (pun intended *grin*). Sexual rituals is one instance where the two sexes combine their energy patterns to manifest a goal...not all but most...(I apologize to any homosexuals if this treads on toes, it isn't intended to do so).
In the Abramelin working it is possible for women to perform the ritual...but they must remain virgins. It could be argued that this is a left over from the patriarchal crap of the church and its politics...or, it could be leftover from the times when menstruation was considered taboo. I've been in ritual with women who were menstruating and the energy flows were considerably different than when they were not. In my estimation, frankly, it has been my experience that women can channel energy better than men...and when it comes to materializing phenomena they are far better than men (and I'm a materializing medium)!
So, in deference due, I will research this Universal Law to see if I've misinterpretted your statement...it's been known to happen! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

I basically dont go on my period so I guess I dont channel energy like a women. . . (IMG:style_emoticons/default/fie.gif)

This post has been edited by Aphrodite: Nov 9 2009, 07:53 PM

Well from my back ground in psychology I know that men and women DO think differently in many ways. But that doesn't suggest superiority of one gender over the other. Its just a biological and social characteristic. Each method of thought has its own pros and cons. As far as excluding women from magick, regardless of the form of magick, I think that does underscore the fact that in patriarchal history women were exluded from many things where women could hold positions of "power".

Disclaimer: The following sounds more biased I think than it actually is - on the subejct of Gender though, from a point of view of Universal/Magical Law, understanding its operation on a deeper level than just genatalia will, I believe, do more to reveal the true nature of the grimoire in question, as well as lead to a deeper understanding of the significance of physical gender in relation to other non-physical 'gender' elements in creation, than it will to divide the genders or prove the superiority of one over the other. IMHO, as always, the truth is in the resolution of opposites (not male and female, but the separation and unification of gender, both of which are true in their way).

Although I do personally tend to think that many of the old grimoires are simply male-centric largely due to the chauvanism of the times - lets face it, most cultures have held women to be incapable of any number of spiritual acts for no other reason than that they were the 'inferior' sex, and not for any other deeper mystical reason, truthfully - I also agree that men and women handle energy differently. It doesn't mean they can't both channel the same energies - although the law of sympathy is frankly immutable, and some people will channel the energies they are in sympathy with better than those who are not in sympathy with them - but it does mean that when that energy comes through its coming through differently and will therefore have a different quality between almost any two people but major differences like Physical gender are very obvious. Like settings on a water hose - some are good for watering plants, some are good for pressure washing the deck. Same water, but 'channeled' differently.

Lets also not confuse gender with Gender - 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. From an energetic standpoint, hormones and the operation of the endocrine system is what ultimately determines the energetic state of the individual. Brains can be wired differently, but there are certain gender based absolutes written into our basecode, as it were. If we alter these things? I see physical gender as less a sliding scale and more of a standing waveform of manifestation which has certain harmonies and does not have certain others, and can only be altered so far. At best, temporary alteration of endocrine activity will produce an incomplete waveform representation of the opposite gender. Physically the individual may pass, visually, as the opposite gender, but electromagnetically, etherically, and astrally, they still retain obvious differences which set them apart of the intended physical gender, as well as identify them as their original manifested gender.

On the mental plane Gender is not a sliding scale at all either - Gender on the mental plane refers to operations of the two inherent polarities of the mental existence - the Creative and Impulsive, the Me and the I, the subject/object phenomenon, or the reason for it. Tendancies towards a more socially identified 'male' posture or 'female' posture does not equate energetically male or female sympathies. The actual physical experience of being male cannot imprint into the consciousness, nor of being female. Being that this experience ultimately is distilled into the essence of the amalgamated consciousness of an individual's 'presence' and 'function' on the mental plane, there again there is a point of absolute division between manifested male and female reflected into the mental plane as well.

Gender on the Spiritual Plane likewise has nothing to do with the physical conception of gender, or the mental conception of gender, but rather a more universal and cosmic sense of Nature vs. Law, the former acting, evolving, and creating according to the order expressed in the latter. Binah/Chokmah, Knowledge and Wisdom, Mother and Father. The individual spirit is, as with the mental body, composed of both masculine and feminine spiritual elements, but will be physically sympathetic with one or the other principally. This does not mean that men do not have access to the 'natural' spiritual principle, nor that women do not have access to the 'lawful' spiritual principle - just that men more easily access, integrate, and express the Masculine spiritual principle than women, and visa versa for Women and the Feminine principal.

Ultimately neither gender exists without the other on any level, I am always baffled about the gender argument in the first place. The definitions are somewhat obvious, but due to a sense of superiority or inferiority, IMO, both genders seek to figure out reasons why they are not somehow restricted to their respective roles physically, mentally, and spiritually. While there is leeway, the simple fact is that absent influences, each gender on any level, will operate as it is designed to operate.

Kath's argument appears to stem from a western paradigm wherein Mind is Separate from the Body it inhabits, and Spirit is there again separate from those in turn. Under a model wherein there is no separation among these things, but they are all part of a single complex, a bandwidth including all of them, a great number of difficulties are resolved.

So we have then a misunderstanding, I think, of Gender as well as possibly a mixation of paradigm which I'm personally okay with - however redifining 'gender' to be a sliding scale serves no purpose. There are adequate explanations already which do not require a rewriting of what gender means. Taken at its face value on every level, gender is self-evident in its function. Gender is an Aspect of Universal law, so I would agree that it is being used here perhaps from a point of view where it is not quite understood thoroughly.

Now, as far as the Abramelin working goes... ultimately as mentioned the point of the abramelin working is to seek contact, conversation, and connection with the HGA, as well as obtain dominion over all evil spirits, correct? Both of these things are distintly masculine elements both on the mental and spiritual plane. I am not suggesting that a women could not attain to this, but that, according to Universal Law, it will be more difficult for them, because they are not naturally in sympathy with that natural element.

Now, the inverse to that of course, is the feminine counterpart to both of those things. HGA is equivalent with Will, with Law; the HGA supposedly reveals one's transgressions upon the first encounter, and I doubt these equate perfectly with traditional western christian morality exclusively. Dominion over spirits is likewise and expression of the manifested power of will on the spiritual/mental planes. There is no grimoire written, as far as I know, which addresses the polar opposites of these things. One's initial intuitive thought is to think of the opposite of the HGA to be the Holy guardian demon (as I once read it, and i believe this came from the need/desire/daydream to invert the HGA as a matter of polarity), but really that concept simply is the moral opposite, that morality being strictly human social in nature. The desire, as it were, to believe there is some 'demon' element opposing the 'angel' element but its description hardly sounds appropriate, more new agey than based on any exploration of the matter.

So rather than focus on whether or not a woman can practice the Abramelin operation - I believe that with training and discipline any woman can, as there is no strict element of Universal Law that prevents it absolutely - shouldn't we be considering, given the obvious Masculine nature of the goals of the Abramelin operation, what the inverse feminine manifestation on the same levels might be? I believe that ultimately the path to attaining to the feminine element on the mental/spiritual spheres parallel to the HGA goal, would be a parallel path of sorts.

Eh, that's my bit of pontification on the subject.

peace

PS: Kath, If the discrete psychological, endocrine, and spiritual elements which are expressed in the seven chakras model of the energy body are present in you, and you have expressed most of them so far just in what I have seen in your pattern of self-expression here, then you do conform to the seven chakra model. The functions of the energy body can be observed in any combination, or with exclusions and reinterpretations because that aspect of being is more fluid than the physical is subjectively. Even then we can say 'circulatory system' or we can look at the collection of systems which regulate body temperature, or nourish our cells. Each could be considered a system, but because that one 'system' accomplished what the individual systems did, does not mean that we say we have only a 'temperature regulation system' and not a circulatory system.

This post has been edited by Vagrant Dreamer: Nov 9 2009, 11:22 PM

I dont think men and women think differently (that doesn't even make sense to me, unless we are talking the stereotypical beliefs that men are logical, women are emotional). I personally think and act typically male (via American society). There is nothing different from me and my male friends other than the physical. There is no proof that women think differently than men unless I'm the only women in the world who happened to miss the world wide female survey and test on how you think.

“Menstral blood etc. cannot be manifested by a male. Period (pun intended *grin*).”

So? Many women can’t manifest menstral blood. The example of menstruation doesn’t apply to all women and shouldn’t in my opinion be an example of how women can channel energy different. II have many other female friends including myself that don’t go on periods.

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.

The idea that women can’t practice magic is archaic just like skin color dictating intelligence. Its pretty simple to me. . .

sweeping generalizations are almost always wrong, and there are some in almost every post here (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

I dont think men and women think differently (that doesn't even make sense to me, unless we are talking the stereotypical beliefs that men are logical, women are emotional). I personally think and act typically male (via American society). There is nothing different from me and my male friends other than the physical. There is no proof that women think differently than men unless I'm the only women in the world who happened to miss the world wide female survey and test on how you think.

Here's just one of many studies about how many and women think - physiologically. http://www.livescience.com/health/050120_brain_sex.html Thinking, in terms of processing information via the activity of the brain, is a phsyiological activity. That activity which takes place on the 'mental plane' is not the same as what occurs in your brain. What the brain does is what you might call 'finite thought'. Men and women do think differently, it is a matter of hormone presence and endocrine activity. Frankly speaking, except for empirical information garnered via endoencephalagrams, psychological case studies, and surveys (we're talking case studies in the thousands, not a couple of dozen in some particular area), you have no idea whether or not you think like a man or not. You could never know beyond these observable element how to compare your thought processes with any other living being. You can compare a certain level of similarity to presence on the mental plane, if you are able to observe sensation on that level yet, but that is, again, not the same thing as 'brain consciousness'.

“Menstral blood etc. cannot be manifested by a male. Period (pun intended *grin*).”

So? Many women can’t manifest menstral blood. The example of menstruation doesn’t apply to all women and shouldn’t in my opinion be an example of how women can channel energy different. II have many other female friends including myself that don’t go on periods.

That doesn't change the fact that only women can produce it, that men absolutely can't, and that mentrual blood has it's own particular magical qualities unique to that substance. I don't ever care to use the stuff, but plain fact is I can't make it on my own even if I wanted to use it. It has little to do with whether you do or don't.

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”.

You are sensitive to all stereotypes presented to you so far, but that's perfectly fine. The think is, these are not stereotypes. You're thinking of this in terms of subjectivity, but there is no discussion of subjective traits of the sexes, in my opinion, present in this thread so far. Additionally, not one of us has so far posted anything along the lines of being 'less than' or 'not what a woman is' etc., because you are a woman and you think differently. The differences between men and women to no imply any kind of value judgement for one or the other and I don't think it has been used that way here. I wouldn't take offense to being told I couldn't give birth - why would you be offended if you were told you could not impregnate a woman with your seed? This is the same thing.

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

I did not have a father growing up, I have only one male cousin who lives far away, one uncle I hardly ever saw, and a large family of nearly exclusively women. I have made friends almost exclusively with women over the course of my life - with very, very few exceptions. I work in a profession which is populated primarily by female professionals and female clientele. And yet I still do not understand how women think because in all my experience it has been made clear that those studies are not wrong - there are fundamental differences. I have met and known 'manly' women who take part in typically male activities, who play 'with the boys' and keep up with them, etc., and on the basic functionally conscious level, they appeared to react, process information, make assumptions, and operate intellectually like a female and not a male. Not better or worse than a male, just as a female. You consider these things to be inherently judgemental and stereotypical, but that is just modern conditioning on your part. You believe that the statement that men and women are different equates with men are better than women, but that is not true. One statement means one thing, the other statement means another. Inherent differences in basic function suggests inherent differences in aptitudes. That doesn't mean women are better are rearin' childrens, or that men are better at bringin' home tha' bacon. Considering these basic biological differences (I'm not, and was not, even considering the psychological differences as those are partially a matter of conditioning and therefore not absolute differences) of body and brain physiology stereotypes is like saying that brunettes are stereotypically brunette - that to assume a brunette has naturally brown/black hair is stereotyping that person somehow.

You and Kath appear to posit that Biological differences do not imply energetic differences. That comes from a misunderstanding of the energetic nature of reality (and not because you are women, but because you haven't resolved the paradox between a physical world and an energetic one). The physical, in this case biological, does count energetically. Even if you can operate functionally as a male energetically, there is a point of absolute division - you cannot act energetically 100% male, nor can I act energetically 100% female.

The idea that women can’t practice magic is archaic just like skin color dictating intelligence. Its pretty simple to me. . .

And there again you take one topic of discussion and turn it into an attack - no one has suggested in any way that women cannot practice magic. If you can quote that from someone here so far, then I would appreciate it because I seem to be missing that part here.

The subject called into question was whether or not the Abramelin operation from the "Book of Abramelin the Mage" can be successfully operated by a woman, for whatever reasons, given that within the book itself the text prohibits women undertaking the practice. Saying women can do anything is different than actually accomplishing, for instance, the execution of the Abramelin Operation. Hardly anyone has, much less women.

One point of view is an archaic one, which is less that women cannot practice magic and more, realistically, that women gain their magic other ways - most post-tribal cultures recognized some specialized kind of magic performed exclusively by women, but apparently that slipped through the cracks in reasoning here somehow - and are, from that point of view, not able to practice 'male magic'.

Now we know that in most cases men and women are able to accomplish the same things - however just as there are absolute divisions of capability physically (and there are, that's not an argument but a statement of commonly known fact), so must there also be absolute divisions of capability energetically/magically, because the principle of gender is reflected at all levels between the basic causal/spiritual and the manifest/physical.

The question is not whether or not those differences exist - any competently experienced magician of either gender can observe, not guess or speculate, that it is so. The question posed in this discussion is whether or not those differences prevent a woman from completing the abramelin operation or if instead the exclusion of women practitioners in the text is simply a product of the time.

sweeping generalizations are almost always wrong, and there are some in almost every post here

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?

peace

there is a conspiracy theory that some woman of power did something that was so bad, so trecherous, so betraying to all humaity, that the men of earth felt that women could never be trusted again with spiritual matters, which was always in the capable hands of the women until then - it is deeply involved with the inability of europeans to remember 'the lands to the west'

eve copulating with the serpent, samson and deliah, 'the fallen angels' finding the women of earth beautiful, giants, etc,

but of course its all made up (and we know our history)....right?

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

Greetings!
Yes....I suppose that I could have produced an exhaustive treatise on the variable sex characteristics of gender and gender roles.
Where is this going? I found that by making a statement that men and women use energy differently got up some bodies back. It appeared that offense was taken.
It was pointed out that this might be the case. Now I'm swimming in zygotes and alot of, apparently, emotion from the stand point that even tho' there are genders, they are the same, technically and I will explain it by pointing out how much of an anomaly it is (ie different)
Let me clarify just what I said...
#1 The Abramelin Operation suggested that this only be done by a male...tho' if it was done by a female, she must be a virgin.
#2 It has been my experience through the last 60+ years of actively working with Magic, I've noticed that men and women handle/channel energy differently, most of the time.
This has been corroborated by a number of sources, both male AND female (Melita Denning, Dion Fortune, Helena Blavatsky, etc.)

I, in no way, stated that women were inferior, less capable in Magic. If you are incapable of achieving menstruation, be it by birth defect, chemical inducement or surgery, this surely will have an impact upon your abilities on a broader scope...but these are anomalies, like it or not! True Hermaphrodites are exceedingly rare and, in occult tradition, granted special status when it comes to energy flow. I'm sure that anything to affect you physiologically will have some effects, regardless! (Kath...wasn't it you who suggested to another member to read Frater U.D.'s work(s)?) I am appreciative to Vagrant for being more articulate than I in this subject(s). The speed and alacrity of responses show me that I placed this topic in the correct Forum. Emotively, we are running high. Frankly, I don't care to enter a pissing contest.
(I get wet due to shortchanges in my life *sigh*...*grin*) Please do not be offended here, this discussion isn't about stereotypes or other such nonsense. The discussion was on how women were able to perform some kinds of magic and not others (and, hopefully, why?). Let's save the defensive posturing for when we really need it, no one is under attack other than to defend against misinterpretations of statement/semantics.

Saying that men and women handle energy differently is fine. It begs the question, though:

Is it inherent that men and women handle energy differently, or is it a *learned* trait that's imparted during the socialisation process?

I know that when I was a kid, I was always told that 'you shouldn't act so smart, boys don't like that.' Well for the record other women don't either, a lot of people are frightened by smart people. Did I care? Nope, that was their problem, not mine. Another thing was 'you should not be so aggressive or competitive. It's not feminine.' I couldn't give two shakes of a rat's ass on that one, along with the comment about why I never liked to wear skirts/dresses--even now, I find them uncomfortable. Or, 'why can't you play with Barbies like a proper girl? Why do you like GI Joes and He-Man toys?' My response was always that Barbies were too big to play with comfortably (I'm still small at 5'4 and about 105lbs, but I'm getting back to where I should be at about 95-100lbs as they get everything sped back up to normal) and they weren't small enough to slip in my backpack or bag and take somewhere. That usually shut people up.

I got every stereotype in the book when I was younger, and I gave the old one-finger salute to most of them. It was pretty clear my method of being, so to speak, made people feel threatened, and it was pretty obvious people were afraid of nothing consequential at all. It would be one thing if I pulled a knife on them or something, which is not something I'd do except in self-defence, but it never ceased to amaze me that their reactions to my not following the gender script was much the same.

I like makeup. I like stuffed animals. I like guys more than girls in general, I've never thought once about dating women instead of men and never lost any sleep over it either, although I've run into my fair share of creeps and guys who thought I should be a 'good little woman.' They didn't last long. I took ballet, modern, and jazz dance for 10 years and was just about good enough to go pro--then I realised one injury and my career'd be over and it wasn't worth the risk to make 25K/year net. Then I found out how bad my asthma *really* was and got hit with a couple autoimmunes (the doc now thinks I have Addison's too), so in retrospect it's just as well. I'd like clothes more if they made more stuff in a size 2, but given how fatass we Americans are, that's not likely in the near future. I don't know if I could have kids, I can't stand kids and so I never tried--but it's unlikely given my immune system randomly throws tantrums and tries to nuke everything at the drop of a hat. I could go on and on here, but I'm sure these examples clarify the point.

The thing is, it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to tell how much is the old nature vs. nurture argument. Each culture has its own values and biases, some of which are extremely subtle and nearly impossible to tease out and examine individually. Genetics also plays a role, too, but it only sets parameters--it doesn't say what the organism in question *must* do beyond eat, excrete, and maybe reproduce. My cats are all neutered, but they're all still male. They just no longer feel the need to throw their weight around, and since they're kept indoors, their territories are small and they don't need to roam. Every cell in their little bodies still has XY chromosomes, but they've been taught to be cute and cuddly. It's true for people too.

My $3. Now V's on and I've got to go watch. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Edit: as for what this has to do with magic, who SAYS that women are supposed to do one thing and men are supposed to do another? Since when is there only one way to solve a problem? I've found spirits respect you if you respect them, regardless of gender. Women and men are equally good at handling the forces of the universe--the difference is women are inculcated that these things are off limits and so they come later in the game, usually. This is changing--slowly.

This post has been edited by Darkmage: Nov 10 2009, 08:12 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

Here's just one of many studies about how many and women think - physiologically. http://www.livescience.com/health/050120_brain_sex.html Thinking, in terms of processing information via the activity of the brain, is a phsyiological activity.

How do scientist know for sure that I think more with white brain matter than gray like a man?

Men and women do think differently, it is a matter of hormone presence and endocrine activity. Frankly speaking, except for empirical information garnered via endoencephalagrams, psychological case studies, and surveys (we're talking case studies in the thousands, not a couple of dozen in some particular area), you have no idea whether or not you think like a man or not. You could never know beyond these observable element how to compare your thought processes with any other living being.

With out testing I don’t see how you can judge how I think based on the fact that I am a woman. I don’t know if I think like a man or not and nether do you. I’ve been given convincing scientific statistics and research that basically comes to the conclusion that certain races are inferior, science can prove anything.

That doesn't change the fact that only women can produce it, that men absolutely can't, and that mentrual blood has it's own particular magical qualities unique to that substance. I don't ever care to use the stuff, but plain fact is I can't make it on my own even if I wanted to use it. It has little to do with whether you do or don't.

How does the fact that only women can produce menstrual blood prove as one example that all women channel energy different when me and many other woman can’t produce menstrual blood?

I wouldn't take offense to being told I couldn't give birth - why would you be offended if you were told you could not impregnate a woman with your seed? This is the same thing.

Not all men can impregnate a woman and not all women can give birth.

I have met and known 'manly' women who take part in typically male activities, who play 'with the boys' and keep up with them, etc., and on the basic functionally conscious level, they appeared to react, process information, make assumptions, and operate intellectually like a female and not a male.

Manly women? So how did these men and women appear to react and process information differently? I’m assuming you can’t see whether white or gray brain matter is being used.

You believe that the statement that men and women are different equates with men are better than women, but that is not true.

I don’t like people and societies marginalizing what is female and what is male.

Even if you can operate functionally as a male energetically, there is a point of absolute division - you cannot act energetically 100% male, nor can I act energetically 100% female.

I also can’t act 100% female. So I guess I’m not fully female.

And there again you take one topic of discussion and turn it into an attack - no one has suggested in any way that women cannot practice magic. If you can quote that from someone here so far, then I would appreciate it because I seem to be missing that part here.

There is a reason why I didn’t quote anyone. I was simply stating that the view towards women in the Abremelin is an archaic idea like racism, and its that simple. Having an in depth debate about it is pointless.

Additionally, not one of us has so far posted anything along the lines of being 'less than' or 'not what a woman is' etc., because you are a woman and you think differently.

I didn't mean to insinuate inequality. I’m against the narrow concepts of gender.

You and Kath appear to posit that Biological differences do not imply energetic differences.

I agree that biological difference could imply energetic differences, but I dont think that has anything to do with gender as a whole sense everyone is different.

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.

If males and female thinking are dictated by the “natural” order and biochemistry than why is it that some men naturally are sexually and romantically attracted to men? In a sense that would be against nature and biochemistry. They must not be 100% males, especially ones that desire to be penetrated.

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.

You do realize you just proved my point about stereotyping? I’ve actually talked to numerous men, usually gay and/or non white, that are first to think inequality when discussing gender. Some would say that’s a minority bias. Luckily I realize that the average person meets about .0002% of the human race.

Based on your experiences I would think that women seen to be incapable of maturely and intelligently discussing gender.

This post has been edited by Aphrodite: Nov 10 2009, 09:52 PM

It appears that this topic is too inflamatory to even be discussed! LOL! If we could stick to topic it would help things immeasurably!
Aphrodite, I'm sorry that the bee was deposited in your bonnet! This is not an attack. You may disagree. (You as well Kath...equality in all)
But sometimes a discussion turns against itself when argument stands for its own sake. I made the statement about 'channeling' energy, not Vagrant.
I also said that it was not 100% universal in application. Will you argue with everyone about this point?...or do you see where it may be true...at least, some of the time? Granted in this Forum, because of its very nature, anomalies are most likely the norm. (But I do get the impression that you don't like ANYBODY telling you something that you disagree with, especially when it comes to gender issues). My years of experience have shown me that my statement runs true...to me. But where do you draw the line? Do we NEVER talk about this because the semantics or the socio-economic upbringing disagrees with your own ideas? I hope not! Rather, I would be very open to hear about the ways energy works exactly the same between the 'sexes'. (Pardon my usage of the word...I'm old, set in my ways and probably, unconciously, a chauvanistic pig *grin*)

It is true that you can make statistics say anything you'd like. If you disagree with the scientific study then explain why you disagree other than, "...because..." The brain scans were performed by an MRI...of course the technician could be lying and/or this could be a conspiracy theory...? In quite a few occult texts and in the various grade papers of certain occult lodges women have been shown to excell at scying, illusion and spirit communications. Better than men. They also, in non occult terms, are better equipped to handle/endure pain...again, better than men. It was once hypothesized that mens energy is more linear and womens is more cyclical. This I may actually disagree with...but nonetheless... The four elemental weapons used in magic are ascribed to gender. In each the energy flows in a specific way. Was this actually a question of societal programming?

Let's hear about why men were considered to be the recipient of certain occult teachings...besides the well-worn patriarchal folderol. Why is it that there isn't an Earth Father and a Sky Mother? (actually I think the Babylonians had something akin to this...?)
Maybe I'll change the topic title to broaden the discussion? What do you guys think? (PS Please give me your opinion, then just go with it...I can change the Title at anytime!)
Aphrodite...know that I'm not picking on you specifically...I was attempting to make a point and you got caught in my myopic vision.*grin*

How do scientist know for sure that I think more with white brain matter than gray like a man?

If you were to have a test done, and found out where the distribution of activity is in your brain, would you feel more like a woman than you apparently do?

With out testing I don’t see how you can judge how I think based on the fact that I am a woman. I don’t know if I think like a man or not and nether do you. I’ve been given convincing scientific statistics and research that basically comes to the conclusion that certain races are inferior, science can prove anything.

There is no significant genetic or physiological difference between two individuals of differing ethnic origins. The same is not true of male and female specimen.

How does the fact that only women can produce menstrual blood prove as one example that all women channel energy different when me and many other woman can’t produce menstrual blood?

It is not proof - it is an example. If you cannot produce menstrual blood, then there is an energetic difference between you and woman who can. Not a good or bad difference, just a different manifestation of energetic currents.

Not all men can impregnate a woman and not all women can give birth.

That has nothing at all to do with the context or meaning of the quote you responded to with this.

Manly women? So how did these men and women appear to react and process information differently? I’m assuming you can’t see whether white or gray brain matter is being used.

Ah, here it is then. Have you noticed that in this particular discussion the male contributors appear to be primarily concerned with mechanical, concrete elements? And that the female contributors seem primarily concerned with the abstract elements - the changeable nature of gender becomes something more philosophical than literal, the inclusion of social paradigm? Men and women communicate differently because they think differently, physiologically (that's brain thought, not consciousness thought), and therefore can take the same experience and draw out a different version of even the same conclusion. Men think in mechanical terms - it does not mean that women cannot think in mechanical terms, it means that it is the base value for men. Women think in broader abstracted terms. That does not mean that men cannot. It means that a man and a woman can take one experience, or concept, etc., and process it in a different way, make different natural conclusions and connections, peice it together with other experiences in different ways. Does that mean that any two women will come to the same conclusion or connection in regards to the same experience? No. But the base-line quality, stripped of subjective interpretive elements like cultural biases, etc., will be similar on the level of brain activity. The same physiological resources will be used first and most efficiently to process the experience. And likewise for any two men.

I don’t like people and societies marginalizing what is female and what is male.

Tough. It's not as though we're compiling a list of things men and women can and can't do because of their gender. We're also, again not discussing the social view of what should and should not be male or female behavior or role in the general sense except specifically as it regards magical operation from the judeo-christian standpoint which, as I said in the previous post, is really too narrow a discussion topic for this subject, and on which you have made your stance clear with no supporting statements aside from it being an archaic form of thinking. It seems to me that you have been reading, but only pulling out the bits that specifically allow you to make erroneous conclusions by excluding them from their context. Lots of people, male and female alike, do that.

I also can’t act 100% female. So I guess I’m not fully female.

Again, taken out of context and twisted into an erroneous interpretation. Acting 'female' in terms of behavior is not what I meant, hence the inclusion of the term 'energetically' rather than just "acting 100% male/female". This means, to take action energetically. Even if you are not able to embrace 100% of energetic/physiological female nature as you have stated previously, you can embrace more of that than the male energetic/physiological nature. The inverse is true for any male, whether he is a phsyiologically perfectly functional male or not.

There is a reason why I didn’t quote anyone. I was simply stating that the view towards women in the Abremelin is an archaic idea like racism, and its that simple. Having an in depth debate about it is pointless.

That is an assumption based on your opinion of the influence of the times on the book. I'm not saying your wrong, all I have been saying is that if we open discussion for what the differences are we might be able to consider what other meaning might have been implied. Personally I don't know what the complimentary aspect of the HGA might be, I've never heard of it before, but everything in nature has a complementary element - on all levels up until the sublime unity of the All. You are taking a direct and literal approach based on historical bias, I am trying to be more inclusive and consider a wider range of possible interpretations and reasoning, because I cannot reasonably assume that an occult work was written this way based on chauvanism, when contemporary works of this particular book do not all share the same sentiment.

I didn't mean to insinuate inequality. I’m against the narrow concepts of gender.

No, you have demonstrated that you're against narrow concepts of gender behavior. That is not the same thing.

I agree that biological difference could imply energetic differences, but I dont think that has anything to do with gender as a whole sense everyone is different.

I tend to believe that each implies the other, but I think that is not a constructive topic for this discussion unless we want to also discuss what conditions lead to a being manifesting as male or female - which gets into matters of pre-experiential energy or Karma.

I'm saying then that Gender implies ONE energetic difference between individuals, and that this energetic difference might be of some significance to the practice of magic, determining not whether or not it can be practiced, but how it will be practiced most effectively by the individual based on that natural energetic template. If I am a genius of painting and you are a genius of sculpting, I can learn how to sculpt and you can learn how to paint - but if we both put blood sweat and tears equally into our respective geniuses, I will not become a greater sculpter than you, and you will not become a better painter than I. There are predispositions on every level, and although we are all capable in a sense of to some extent embracing the whole of human experience, there are none the less conditions which cause individuals to be more apt in certain areas than others - gender is one of those differences that will contribute to this natural aptitude, as it endows each sex with certain physiological states which will influence cognition, and therefore color experience and influence expression, in different ways for each of them. Each is a different fundamental energetic expression - there may be many other differences of equal or greater or lesser significance, but few such differences are as encompassing as that of gender; it plays a role of some sort in every single human being.

If males and female thinking are dictated by the “natural” order and biochemistry than why is it that some men naturally are sexually and romantically attracted to men? In a sense that would be against nature and biochemistry. They must not be 100% males, especially ones that desire to be penetrated.

You are confusing cognitive with behavioral psychology, first of all. Secondly, you assume that I insinuated that because you can't menstruate you are not 100% female, which is a conclusion you came to by misinterpreting what was stated in relatively specific and clear terms, hence a man who desires to recieve penetration must not be 100% male. The second flaw here is that you assume homosexuality - prevolent in every corner of the mammalian branch of the animal kingdom - is against the natural order. Or you are making these statements to goad me, but either way the strict logical inconsistency is the same.

You do realize you just proved my point about stereotyping? I’ve actually talked to numerous men, usually gay and/or non white, that are first to think inequality when discussing gender. Some would say that’s a minority bias. Luckily I realize that the average person meets about .0002% of the human race.

Based on your experiences I would think that women seen to be incapable of maturely and intelligently discussing gender.

I didn't assume either you or kath would would bring up the social aspect of gender in what was originally a mechanical examination of the subject. And yet you did. I questioned my own experience, based on my own experience. And then you take it out of context and call it stereotyping.

Based on my experiences, I stay away from the topic of gender as a social thing in general. Mechanically though, both sexes should be able to make observations, reason logically, and maturely express their opinion of those observations. When confined to the mechanical element of gender, this is usually true.

peace

This post has been edited by Vagrant Dreamer: Nov 10 2009, 11:35 PM

Let's hear about why men were considered to be the recipient of certain occult teachings...besides the well-worn patriarchal folderol. Why is it that there isn't an Earth Father and a Sky Mother? (actually I think the Babylonians had something akin to this...?)
Maybe I'll change the topic title to broaden the discussion? What do you guys think? (PS Please give me your opinion, then just go with it...I can change the Title at anytime!)
Aphrodite...know that I'm not picking on you specifically...I was attempting to make a point and you got caught in my myopic vision.*grin*

In the old Egyptian pantheon, Earth was male (Geb) and Sky was female (Nut) which is the reverse of how we usually think of things. IIRC many Native American tribes didn't ascribe a gender to Earth and Sky before the Whites came, they just said they were forms of Spirit and let them be. A good deal of what we'd ascribe to Western magic and philosophy is a mix of ancient Hebrew, Babylonian, and Greek ideas filtered through Roman civilisation (which was a lot more egalitarian than the Church Fathers would have us believe) and then 1500 years of Christian control. The Greek writings formed much of the philosophy and tenor of the early Christian church and these formed the basic foundations with all the standard Greek chauvinism intact.

Frankly this whole discussion strikes me as silly. There is energy in the Universe that can be harnessed by those who are willing and able to do so. Just because two groups of people may handle it differently doesn't make one group inherently superior to the other, it just makes them different. It's like saying men can't be good caregivers (they can) or women can't be good soldiers (they can). It all depends on the attitudes, biases, and individual experiences they bring to the task(s) at hand. And as for the 'virgin' requirement, that's the old Western virgin/whore dichotomy rearing its ugly head. If you're not a virgin, the logic goes, then you MUST be a whore. *sigh* That restriction doesn't apply to males because they weren't the ones constantly pregnant and raising children. The way I read that statement, ANYONE who is still a slave to base desires, such as sex, is disqualified--men and women alike. If you can remain chaste, it doesn't matter (to me anyway) if you're technically not a virgin--you can still control those lower aspects of yourself and that's what matters in the end.

I have to agree that men and women process energy differently. There isn't any proof on paper about this because of the nature of spiritual energy. It is rather hard to measure or quantify or even explain. But I've been doing energy work in groups or couples for 25 years. Energy is mostly about processes rather than than about states of being. Energy is dynamic, not settled. Yin and Yang are not states of being. You aren't in a Yin state or a Yang state. It is more like your energy is forming in a pattern that we describe as Yin, or Yang. Energy is energy, neither Yin or Yang in substance, but the patterns and processes in which they create these patterns are what we call Yin and Yang.

I haven't much other comment because I am not very familiar with Abramelin workings. Perhaps it doesn't work as well with women; I can't say because I don't know what is involved.

I haven't much other comment because I am not very familiar with Abramelin workings. Perhaps it doesn't work as well with women; I can't say because I don't know what is involved.

Unless the women is a virgin.

The whole “women should be virgins” part of the Abramelin is an odd concept. Maybe because if one wasn’t a virgin then they were probably pregnant (assuming there wasn‘t a form of birth control used back then) and dealing with the “demons” could be dangerous to the baby?

I'm not sure about the concept of sky father and earth mother but I use to instinctively associate the moon with male and the sun with female. But after years in the occult my beliefs were changed and now I sense female energy with the moon and male with the sun. . .

Unless the women is a virgin.

The whole “women should be virgins” part of the Abramelin is an odd concept. Maybe because if one wasn’t a virgin then they were probably pregnant (assuming there wasn‘t a form of birth control used back then) and dealing with the “demons” could be dangerous to the baby? .

Birth control was an unknown concept back in those days. They had a few remedies--the ancient Chinese would drink mercury to abort, for example--but on the whole it was a hit-or-miss affair at best. If you got pregnant, oh well--most women would get married around 16, have a litter of kids, then die by 25 or 30. In Elizabethan times, half of all children died by age five and only one in 10 or so survived to have children of their own. A great many women would also die in childbirth or from post-partum infections as they had ZERO knowledge of sanitation, bacteria, and a lot of other medical facts we moderns take for granted. Life was very hard in the Late Middle Ages/early Renaissance; what food there was was bad, and plagues swept through cities on a fairly regular timetable. Famine and warfare was very common and decimated the population further. So...these things should be kept in mind when reading any medieval grimoire, whether it be Abramelin, the Keys, or anything else.

Your point about demons going after the unborn baby is a valid one. If a pregnant woman meddled about with the spirits, who's to say that the spirit in question wouldn't see the unborn child as a foothold into the physical world? It stands to reason that the undeveloped fetus would also have undeveloped defences, and then the hostile spirit would become the baby's soul/spirit/animating force and then anything could happen. A lot of pre-modern cultures have isolation rituals for newborns and their mothers lest some spirit take the child and use it for its own ends, and the general prohibition against women in the Abramelin book may be a survivor of this.

That's an interesting point. At that time, even if the woman wasn't pregnant at the time, then if she wasn't a virgin it likely meant she was a mother. There may have been a practical implication involved - while a father of the era could do as he pleased and have the time and inclination to complete the abramelin operation, a mother would have been expected to be on full-time mother duty, even if she had the resources to employ a nanny of some kind.

But I still wonder, why does this particular grimoire have such a caveat when not all others do? Are there other grimoires that include a condition of this sort? Of the top of my head I can't recall, but I know the crowley edition of the lesser key doesn't and... I don't see one in the greater key under cursory examination, and don't remember reading one before. Obviously the male pronoun is used in regards to the magician but that doesn't necessarily mean anything. I believe there is a particular formula specifically for women in another grimoire, I want to say in the "Le Dragon Rouge"? Most of these trace back to about the same handful of centuries, just in terms of publication at least, and for the Judaic grimoires in particular one would think there would be a particular caveat of this nature if only because of the status women are ascribed in the hebrew holy texts.

And for that matter, given that the magician performing the operation of Abramelin must procure the oaths of the evil spirits and must therefore be exposed to them again and again over time it does sound like fair reasoning to consider that it might be a matter of that possibility that a woman might be pregnant - but then why use the term virgin specifically? Could there be some danger for the children (ones already born which the mother must be present with as the operation is commencing)? As I understand it the magician undergoes a fair amount of spiritual pressure during this operation up until the HGA experience, and then for some number of days later. It's easy enough for a father of the time to isolate himself in the family's country house, etc.

And that's another thing - this is another grimoire which specifically requires the practitioner to 'have his affairs in order' as it were, correct? I haven't read this book in a long time but seem to remember a discussion about not being a slave to any other man, etc. So we're also talking about a magician, of either gender depending on conditions, who doesn't have to submit to the same conditions as the 'lower class' of the era.

All together I'm inclined to think that this book is written for someone, of either gender, who simply has no other specific obligations which will prevent them from completing the work. Virgin, in this case, might as well mean unmarried since the newly wedded wife would be expected to not only be a virgin at the time of marriage, but also she would be expected to have 'nuptuals' with her husband on their wedding night (gotta make them babies), and thereafter to be beholden to him. Therein could be another intention behind the use of that condition.

Given the state of the family in the modern age, if any of these social conditions necessitated the use of the caveat, then perhaps in a modern sense this is an outdated caveat not because of some ancient chauvanism (not present in all grimoires), but because the role of women is more flexible now - as long as the practioner can remain chaste throughout the work, it doesn't matter if the female magician is not a virgin these days; not being a virgin doesn't necessarily imply being a mother/wife anymore.

peace

This post has been edited by Vagrant Dreamer: Nov 11 2009, 07:32 AM

That's an interesting point. At that time, even if the woman wasn't pregnant at the time, then if she wasn't a virgin it likely meant she was a mother. There may have been a practical implication involved - while a father of the era could do as he pleased and have the time and inclination to complete the abramelin operation, a mother would have been expected to be on full-time mother duty, even if she had the resources to employ a nanny of some kind.

Given the state of the family in the modern age, if any of these social conditions necessitated the use of the caveat, then perhaps in a modern sense this is an outdated caveat not because of some ancient chauvanism (not present in all grimoires), but because the role of women is more flexible now - as long as the practioner can remain chaste throughout the work, it doesn't matter if the female magician is not a virgin these days; not being a virgin doesn't necessarily imply being a mother/wife anymore.

peace

This is exactly the point I was trying to make in my first post in this thread. :/ If someone from Abramelin's time was suddenly transported into our modern world, they would find it totally alien and probably go mad from sensory overload and/or culture shock.

I've found that having one's affairs in order is a general recommendation, if not an active requirement, for studying any kind of ceremonial magic. It's hard to concentrate on the Work at hand when you're having a hard time keeping a roof over your head and feeding yourself because you have to work 60 hrs/week to keep your job as a lot of people do these days. :/

Also, sexual relations with one's wife is perfectly acceptable within the Abramelin system, although the practitioner can't have relations with anyone else during that time. That's chauvinistic from the modern point of view, but then again, consider the role of women at that time. I'd say if women want to try the Abramelin system, they should go for it, but remain chaste during the period required to attain conversation with the HGA. I'm sure that men would find it helpful as well, esp. considering how many grimoires require some form of chastity, fasting, or both (Necronomicon) before attempting any of the procedures therein.

Spirits going after children is perfectly imaginable. If these spirits are as evil and as cagey as the grimoire says, then it stands to reason they'll go after any weak point they find in the magician's psyche. This includes children. It's a dirty way to fight, but also an effective one. There's a reason there's that 'do no harm to me and my family including pets, friends, and interests while carrying out your assigned task' clause so often included in general dealings with spirits.

This post has been edited by Darkmage: Nov 11 2009, 08:37 AM

Let me go ahead and say I've got absolutely no idea what this thread or the abre line is really all about... But I will say I that In those days being a female virgin was probably a lot more commonplace and accessible, and could probably denote a youth. At this point there's no way I can go in length into the energy created by virginity (aka the sex fast). However, let me say that virginity, in women is highly valuable most especially because of the idea of bleeding during non pregancy and non bleeding during such, and let's not forget the idea of bleeding during a women's initial penetration. Penultimately notions of female virginity being powerful ultimately revolve around blood (see sacrificing a virgin).

If this topic is about the difference energetically between many and women then it's hard to fathom, mostly due to the difference between each person. I believe women more similarity amongst each other on the energetic plane, while each man have a more distinct rhythm. Really, energy is based on potential, by right a women and man have different potentials.. This is a difficult concept and very primal, it's within this notion that we, as magicians can learn to let go of 'human' interpretations and delve more deeply into different perspective.

This post has been edited by Bb3: Nov 14 2009, 06:46 AM

Let me go ahead and say I've got absolutely no idea what this thread or the abre line is really all about... But I will say I that In those days being a female virgin was probably a lot more commonplace and accessible, and could probably denote a youth. At this point there's no way I can go in length into the energy created by virginity (aka the sex fast). However, let me say that virginity, in women is highly valuable most especially because of the idea of bleeding during non pregancy and non bleeding during such, and let's not forget the idea of bleeding during a women's initial penetration. Penultimately notions of female virginity being powerful ultimately revolve around blood (see sacrificing a virgin).

virgins bleed too ya know (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

If this topic is about the difference energetically between many and women then it's hard to fathom, mostly due to the difference between each person. I believe women more similarity amongst each other on the energetic plane, while each man have a more distinct rhythm. Really, energy is based on potential, by right a women and man have different potentials.. This is a difficult concept and very primal, it's within this notion that we, as magicians can learn to let go of 'human' interpretations and delve more deeply into different perspective.

that's largely what I've been trying to say but kinda gave up on.

although I would submit that your view of women being more 'similar' and men being more 'individualistic' (in general) is probably because you're male, and that vantage point would almost automatically produce the perception of the tendency you describe. In other words, it seems exactly the opposite from the other side of the fence, and both perceptions are just subjective distortion in my opinion.

Wow... since when did a sacred magick thread blow up so quick? Can't read all the posts just yet so excuse the diatribe if its all a bit said and done.

Firstly, the distinction between male and female hasn't always been so lop sided and isn't seen in all cultures, far from it. In many cultures across the world women are UPHELD for their spiritual "sophistication" and here may I point thee to the lovers tarot card in this instance, some versions even show the man holding a club and looking on in envy at the woman as she sees above the cloud blinding him from seeing the angel operating above them both. Left and right brained thinking is also depicted, mirrored rather.

The receptive factor, yin, is always going to be more suceptable to the world around it... evolutionists have it that in time us men became emotionally cold, detached in approach due to our role as hunter gatherers but I like the taoist responce to world clamity... that we as men are sexually inferior to women and, while having lost our way (self cultivation of yin and yang) seek to oppress, limit, womens infinite sexual capability to match our own "inability" to keep up. This is understanding the central role sex plays in our day to day lives, psycologically. The witch hunts of europe could well be seen as an attack on women and their "perverting" the population away from earth, nature, based religion to then impose patriarchial ideals onto the people.

Anyway....

Mentioned before that occult practice is universal, taking from Kaths mention of tantric practices... that both men and women carry both yin and yang energies within them. Spirit as most would know it is a state of.... equilibrium... a state in which both yin and yang, as polarities all elements face, are balanced. In perfect harmony. With this you have the understanding that the universe is mental, macro and micro cosmic "man" as one seeks balance and realizes a cosmic consiousness all duality is done away with as that balance is sought here on earth... now the path there may be rigorous for a man if its one made by a woman or visa versa (of course the author should also be of spiritual note) but if enlightenment is its goal then it cannot favor yin or yang energies as it, the path/school of thought, ultimately seeks to unite them. It, by crutch, simply cannot be biased.

Also hold that no diety is strictly male or female for this same reason, each has its other side or polarity, nothing in the universe is without its opposing principle... God builds nothing without balance.

P.s; This isn't an argument, apologies if it sounds like that. Its 4:17am here in the UK, raining and windy too .lol.

Peace
.M.

This post has been edited by Mchawi: Nov 14 2009, 10:19 PM

Greetings!
Just a quiet reiteration upon the original focus of this discussion...
It was my original thought to generate a discussion about the roles of gender energy within the Judeo/Christian Magical paradigm. This was the spinoff from the Abramelin thread. I thought it best to drop it here in Fight Club to encourage a more lively discussion. I am not disappointed.

It is interesting to note that despite protestations for the similarity between men and women the discussion has produced a very distinct set of differences in regards to the thought processes involved. The question was not one of ultimate balance rather a bias in the occult traditions. Perhaps a truism that reflects the patriarchal stance in the overall circumstances.

For what it is worth...the Abramelin operation allows for the aspirant to be married, sleep with his wife and even raise children whilst in this labor of Faith. There is only a minor blurb about the viability of women performing the same operation...instead focusing almost entirely as if the aspirant was male. The aspirants wife could not be present during her menstruation time and the aspirant could not practice sexual relations during certain times (the aforementioned time being one) and even must remove the woman from the dwelling place of the aspirant during this time. It must be noted that the Judeo/Christian outlook on the womans menstrual time as being one of 'uncleanliness'...clearly a change of thinking from the cults of Astarte (which are now supposedly linked to Mary Magdelene and the 'lost' goddess of the ancient Hebrews).
To further the pot stirring I made the statement that IMHO women and men think differently and handle energy differently. This irked some of you. It was not said to irk you but to, rather, stimulate the conversation into talking about these differences and how they may be applied in Magic, particularily with Judeo/Christian ritual.

I hope this may help retrack a good set of exchanges here...you all have made very good and valid points! (and I Thank you for that!)
or...have I just shot myself in the foot? *grin* (IMG:style_emoticons/default/mr47_05.gif)

I think the statement that men and women think or handle energy differently is difficult to defend. Have you ever been the opposite sex? Even if you believe you have been in a past life, can you remember thinking or handling energy differently, and if you do, how could you convince someone of that?

Having said that I think there are certain methods or techniques of occult/esoteric undertakings that may only apply to men or women but not both, although I can not say this for certain, because I am not a woman. The only thing I can propose that only applies to men would be the use of sexual abstinence in the gathering/storing of energy. In other words, the only difference between men and women is sexual. Typical of occult literature is the idea of using the storing of sexual energy for magick power. This is something that as man, I can easily see how going 13 days without a 'spilling of the seed' can aid the intensity of a ritual (seeing as how there is A LOT energy that is built up/kept in check). However, I don't see how a woman abstaining from sex could produce this same kind of effect, although I obviously can't say this for certain and maybe this idea has resulted from a personal misunderstanding of the differences, or lack there of, between male and female sex energies.

Some of us can 'read' energy as it flows through your own and other people's bodies. After you've read a few hundred or thousand people, you notice the differences.