Main Index
Index
Previous
Next



                                    Women vs. Men
                By: Michelle Hass (in conversation with Scott Szakonyi

          "Ok folks, Loki and I have been chatting, and we're ready to raise a 
          ruckus that might go on for months."
      
          Chiniginish and I relish the challenge...with Coyote looking  over Our
     shoulders and chuckling... 
      
          "Here's the question:  Are women superior to men, and if so, why? 
          I THINK that women are superior to men in the modern world because 
          evolution is lagging society.  Most of the evolution of the human race
          (about  60 million  yrs) took  place in hunter/gatherer  tribes, where
     aggressive behavior on the part of the male hunters was a survival 
     trait, and relating/caring behavior was a survival trait for females.  Now,
     in the 20 thousand or so years since we have become agrarian, the     need
     for male hunter aggressiveness has gone the way of the Dodo,     while  the
     need for relating/caring behavior has become primary.  Where     does  this
     leave us? 

          "Well, as I see it, women are almost ideally suited to the 
     overcrowded, communication intensive environment that we call modern 
     society.  Men,  on the  other hand, are  like people  with no arms  playing
     handball.  It's not that we're bad folk, it's just that we were  designed
     by evolution for an environment that hasn't existed for 20  THOUSAND YEARS,
     which is a real drop in the bucket in terms of    evolution.      Evolution
     isn't going to be giving us any help for at  least  a  few  million  years;
     maybe never since we are constantly     screwing up the  gene pool with our
     wars that leave the genetically    defective   to   breed   and  send   the
     genetically preferable off to      evolutionary  dead ends.   So all we men
     can do is try to better  ourselves  and ask  for  patience on  the part  of
     women, who must feel     like the entire male sex has completely missed the
     boat. "
      
          Well, you've got a nice point, but it assumes something that I believe
     'taint necessarily so. Is male aggressiveness part of nature or nurture? 
     The jury seems to be coming back from a long period of deliberation, and it
     looks like the verdict is NURTURE. 
      
     This very nicely  dovetails with my own theory of  what thelemites refer to
     as the  "procession of  the  aeons". In  Crowley's notorious  Liber Al  vel
     Legis, we are said to  be passing from an aeon of belief  in suffering male
     gods  and patriarchy  to an  aeon of  belief in  the value  of Self  and of
     partnership between  the sexes. Crowley  called the  old aeon the  "Aeon of
     Osiris" and the new the "Aeon of Horus, the Crowned  and Conquering Child."
     The    enthroned    Child   is    not    masculine    or   feminine,    but
     androgynous/gynandrous.  The aeon before the  Osirian was that  of Isis, an
     aeon of Great Mother Goddesses and matriarchy. 
      
     My chronology is  a little different than that which  Crowley attributed to
     these three epochs of human history so far. Crowley declared  that the Aeon
     of Horus  began with the  Spring Equinox of  1904+ Common, just  before the
     writing of the  Book of the Law. I maintain that the change is still taking
     place,  and  had its  roots  in  the 1700s+  Common.  The  writings of  the
     philosopher Locke were  some of the first to make  a very important quantum
     jump, and provided ideological impetus for the  vital changes that have and
     are taking place. 



                                                                             195

     What Locke asserted  was that government did not rest  on Divine Right, but
     on  the consent of  the governed. Human  beings were not  born to different
     castes, some fated to serve while others were fated to rule by the grace of
     the gods.    Human beings  were born  equal, and  had certain  rights as  a
     birthright: Life, Liberty, the  right to pursue Happiness, and the right to
     security of private property. 
      
     This assertion shows up in Liber Al as these statements: 
          "Every Man and Every Woman is a Star. "
          "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law. "
          "Love Is The Law, Love Under Will. "
          "Thou hast no right but to do thy Will. "
      
     In a little less arcane language, these statements run thusly: 
          Every Individual matters. 
          Every  Individual has the right to live,  be free and pursue Happiness
     (harmony with one's life's purpose, or True Will) as they Will. 
          These rights  stop at the boundary  of the Wills of  others. Live your
     life as you see fit, but mind your own business and above all, HARM 
     NOBODY. This includes yourself in a very conditional way. You *do*    have
     the right to self destruction, but if you truly believe that you 
     matter, why would you want to? 
      
     These  assertions  are  usually  encountered firstly  in  a  Locke-inspired
     document that has passed into the history of this country, the  Declaration
     of Independence. If there is  any one document that is a trigger  point for
     the New Aeon,  it's that one.  The American Revolution  was the first  time
     monarchy was  cast aside in  favor of  democracy of a  representative sort.
     Democracy was tried before, but  never quite this way. And despite  several
     course corrections that needed to be made, (the abolishment of Slavery, the
     giving of Women, Blacks and Amerinds the right to vote) and some that still
     need to be  made (the granting of total equality for all races and sexes, a
     shift to a  more direct  method of participation,  ie Cyber-democracy)  the
     democratic experiment in the United 
     States is the most enduring of all. 
      
     Before the  1700s, government  was imposed  from above, not  thought of  as
     flowing from the  consent of  the governed. Individuals  were not  accorded
     rights as a birthright, but  were granted rights by the king, usually  on a
     class-by-class basis. Human beings  were dealt with as masses  and classes,
     on a Collective basis. 
      
     Coincidental with these developments was a surfacing of hermetic thought in
     a more  widespread way  then ever  before in  history. The  Rosicrucian and
     Freemason  movements brought  hermeticism to  a wide  audience.  Within the
     ranks of Freemasonry were both common and noble, and  often commoners would
     be  lodgemasters in  lodges frequented  by those  of noble  birth. Hermetic
     orders ennobled not by birth, but by level of knowledge  and initiation and
     (hopefully) by level of spiritual attainment. 
      
     Now, this was fine in theory, but unfortunately  in practice things weren't
     so swift.  It was  only until  the mid-1800s and  groups like  the original
     Golden  Dawn that  women had  the possibility of  initiation. Even  now, in
     Masonic lodges  that have lost their  occult focus and are  now little more
     than men's clubs, men  are ritually strip-searched to assure  the initiator
     that the candidate is indeed male and not a disguised female. 



                                                                             196


     The  baggage of the  old days  of sexism  and classism remain  in a  lot of
     hermetic orders even today. Crowley himself had serious problems  accepting
     women as equals: he had a rather low opinion of them and was quite cruel to
     them in numerous cases. But very explicit in the message of the New Aeon is
     that people are to be  dealt with, not by sex or race or  social strata but
     by their inborn,  inalienable rights  as individuals...as Stars,  to use  a
     thelemic term. 
      
     The Neo-pagan movement was a definite  evolutionary step in defining a  New
     Aeon mode of spirituality. Unlike the traditional hermetic order, Wicca and
     other forms of Neo-paganism do not have a multiplicity of ranks and a chain
     of  command. Some  have three  degrees, some  two, some  only one,  that of
     initiate.     Initiation  is   not  a  bestowal   of  rank,   but  more   a
     purpose-oriented process. As magickal orders continue  to evolve, they will
     either need to emulate  more and more the informality  and non-hierarchical
     non-structure  of Neo-paganism or choke on their bloated hierarchies. It is
     funny when  one  considers that  there  is much  evidence to  suggest  that
     Neo-paganism evolved from the Astrum Argentum and the OTO, and that much of
     Gardner's groundbreaking work in reconstructing the old pre-Osirian Druidic
     religion was helped along with the research help of Uncle Al himself. 
      
     Perhaps, as the knightly orders of the past were meant as guardians of  the
     Christian  Church,  there  will   become  a  symbiotic  connection  between
     Neo-paganism   and   Magickal   orders,   especially   among   those  whose
     non-structure mimics that of the coven. Arguably this symbiosis exists now,
     and hell, I'm living proof of this. 
      
     So what the deuce does this have to do with the sexes? You'll see as I wrap
     this  up.  Ok...remember I mentioned that  before the Osirian epoch and the
     patriarchy, which seems to have come in with the rise of the big cities and
     the  transformation  from a  hunter-gatherer  society  to an  agrarian  one
     (methinks you  have placed  the transformation  a little  too far  into the
     past)   there  was  the  Isian  epoch  and  the  matriarchy?  Well,  before
     patriarchal  philosophy  displaced matriarchalism,  women  pretty  much ran
     things. They didn't hunt because to place women, who were  the living image
     of the  Goddess and  the ex-nihilo  creatrixes of the  next generation,  in
     bodily jeopardy was literally blasphemy. Women were  the intermediaries for
     men to  the Goddess, who  was unapproachable  otherwise. The men  had their
     hunting  cults,  but  they   were  as  insignificant  in  reality   as  the
     Victorian-era anthropologists  misread the ancient religion  of the Goddess
     as merely an inferior "fertility cult." 
      



                                                                             197


     When the  transition came to  the cities and to  patriarchy sometime around
     10,000- to 7,500- Common, the long-suppressed males took by force what the 
     Goddesses of the Isian era denied them by their divine decree...power. Male
     warrior  deities replaced female mother deities. The priestesses of the old
     religions were destroyed.  (The Book of  Joshua in the  Old Testament is  a
     vivid account of one triumph of Osiris over Isis.) And the new order began.
     But the old matriarchal  religions survived for several thousands  of years
     after  the  turn of  the aeon,  and it  is painfully  obvious that  the old
     patriarchal ways will haunt us for thousands of years into the future, even
     as new ways take hold and new philosophies become more accepted. 
     But  it really is nurture rather than  nature that makes men aggressive and
     women passive.  Men can  learn to  be nurturing and  loving, and  women can
     learn to be assertive and empowered. In  order that we can truly enter this
     new aeon where all are leaders and all are Stars, we each have to cultivate
     the "other side" of our Selves.  No, women are not superior to men,  nor is
     it  the  other  way around.  Every  Individual  matters.  Everyone has  the
     potential to be a King, in the thelemic sense of the word. We need to learn
     to treat all  with dignity, be  they material successes or  abject material
     failures. We  need to treat  even those  still enslaved by  the old  _ideas
     fixes_ with as much dignity as those who have declared their secession from
     them and their embracing of the New Law. 
      
     The evolution is really and truly in our own hands. 
      
     Beauty and balance, Will and Love, 
     Michelle. 



                                                                             198

      
     The coven that I've been working with in Denver begins its cup  blessing by
     a dialogue between the Priest and the Priestess.  Both have a hand  each on
     the athame and the chalice: 
      
     Priest:  "Be it known that a man is not greater than a woman. 
      
     Priestess:  "Nor yet is a woman greater than a man" 
      
     Priest:  "For what one lacks" 
      
     Priestess:  "The other can provide" 
      
     Priest"  "As the Athame is to the male" 
      
     Priestess:  So is the cup to the female. 
      
     Both:   And when conjoined together, they become one in truth, for there is
     no greater magick in all the world than that of love. 
      
     BB Rowan 



                                                                             199