Tuesday, November 1, 2011

Yep, Even More on the Lilith Rite at PCon 2011: for Miss E

In response to the continuing discussion on the Amazon Priestess Tribe's ill-fated Lilith ritual at Pantheacon 2011, Miss E said:
I've been following the issue a little on Wild Hunt, and I read your blog regularly (I guess this is the blog version of "long time listener, first time caller!")
You're making me feel like the bastard child of Al Franken and Janeane Garofalo here.

Seriously, I'm glad you have enjoyed my blog so far.  Given that you are a fan of  John Kennedy Toole's Confederacy of Dunces - arguably the greatest book ever written about New Orleans - it's obvious that you have good taste.  Looking at your comment, I suspect we are more in agreement than it might seem at a cursory glance.
There are loads of issues to tease out, it seemed like the primary one was the suitability of such a ritual for Pantheacon - but it always seems to segue way in to a sort of debate on the theological legitimacy of Dianic religion. I'm assuming the inflammatory comments by Budapest prompt this - but I suspect it would happen even without them, and I wonder how that element of the debate grapples with the traditions that having sub sects, rituals, and roles that differentiate between sex and/or gender. 
I've tried very hard to limit my discussion to "is a ritual which excludes transpeople appropriate at a public convention?" I recognize the Dianics' right to free association and to define their thealogy as they see fit.  Whether I agree or disagree with their conclusions is irrelevant: I am not a member of their community and have no interest in joining.  I felt that, for the purposes of working through the issue at hand, discussions about Dianic theology would only serve to derail the problems which could actually be solved by the Pantheacon organizers.

That being said, I think every religion is, and should be, subject to questioning about controversial tenets.  The Roman Catholic Church is regularly called to task for its refusal to ordain women and married men to the priesthood.  Islamic authorities are often questioned about the meaning of "jihad" and what it requires when an individual's perceived duties as a Muslim conflict with hir duties as a citizen of a secular state.  Often these questions are critical: sometimes they are put forth by people with hostile agendas. But they are part and parcel of an open society. While the Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of religion, it does not promise you a cheering section.
The whole situation, in several writings, feels laden with a sort of "Oppression Olympics" flavor, perhaps that's inevitable.
Unfortunately, there is a disparity in privilege and cultural capital here. While this may cause discomfort for some people who prefer to think themselves innocent victims of the Evil Patriarchy, it needs to be dragged into the light.  Here's Sarah Thompson talking about her experiences:
I am, as it turns out, the second transsexual woman in my family. My first cousin committed suicide about 20 years ago as a direct reaction to the negative responses of my own family to her coming out as transsexual. My family’s response to her death was to remain absolutely silent – I didn’t find out for many years what had really happened. Her death, and the guilt that it incubated in my family, meant that I had a slightly easier time – all they did was disown me. 
Some people say that transsexual women possess male privilege, and that they seek to use that privilege, consciously or otherwise, to oppress other women or to gain access to women’s space. Some say that transsexual women aren’t women at all, twisting the argument into one over the mere definition of a word, rather than honestly owning up to their bigotry. 
I can say, quite categorically, that transsexual women do not have privilege over other women. In practice, I have found that, when someone doesn’t know that I’m transsexual, I’m discriminated against just like any other woman. When they know, or suspect, that I’m also transsexual, this typically causes further discrimination. I’ve been thrown off a D.Phil programme at Oxford University, survived a violent attempted murder that was ignored by the police, been fired from several jobs, denied many job interviews, been paid less than my male (and cis-female) counterparts, all specifically because people knew I was transsexual. I’m lucky. I have a bitter privilege that was denied my cousin:  
I’m alive.
I may add that Sarah is not only more fortunate than her cousin: she is more fortunate than those honored each year at the International Transgender Day of Remembrance.  Transwomen are regularly beaten, murdered and discriminated against: as an SPLC report put it, many consider them to be "Disposable People." Given this, it behooves the Dianics to recognize that their trans-exclusionary policies cause pain to a group which has no shortage of detractors and enemies.  If they feel their theology requires this exclusion - and I recognize their right to exclude whom they will for any reason or for no reason at all - it would be fitting for them to at least acknowledge their privileged position in this particular state of affairs.
I'm certainly not a Dianic, or even a Wiccan for that matter, but I am a humourless feminist, and as such, I've just been marveling over your last paragraph! So, by finding value in physiological, biochemical experience of being female, women are somehow reducing themselves to...yeah, wow!
As I said in the original post to which you responded, "Since a number of women have chimed in with testimonials about how Dianic Witchcraft has had a positive effect on them, I presume at least some people are getting something out of it. It's not my thing, but it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg if a bunch of people want to get together for dick-swinging or Yoni-worshipping." I don't get it, but that is not surprising.  As someone said once in a Usenet .sigfile "the things which I do not know are part of an infinite set."

My major objection to "moon-blood mysteries" comes when they are used like literacy tests and poll taxes in the Jim Crow-era South.  Invariably when pressed I've heard that yes, a cisgendered woman who had never experienced menarche for medical reasons would be welcomed at a Dianic "moon-blood celebration," where a transwoman would not.  At which point the argument shifts to questions of "socialization" and "childhood experiences." Frankly, I think that this convenient use of one's mysteries to keep out "the wrong sort" is far more blasphemous than grunting misogynistic jokes.  The fratboy who makes jokes about women being "life support systems for vaginas" acknowledges his vulgarity and profanity. He doesn't try to express his bigotry in religious terms, or claim that it is his sacred duty to objectify those whose bodies are different than his own.
Personally I think all feminine identified should get the opportunity to celebrate that embodied experience if they feel called to it. Unfortunately, I doubt the current atmosphere is conducive to discussions of shared and disparate experiences with the nature of physicality between women of all identities.
I think the major issue is whether an exclusionary ritual should be held at a public event. There is some chance we will be able to come to some resolution of that problem. The value of exclusionary "womyn-born-womyn" policies and their inherent oppressiveness or lack thereof will probably get solved around the time the Catholics resolve the issue of ordaining women... in other words, I ain't holding my breath. But as with many conundrums, I think there is value in respectful discussion even when there is little or no hope of coming to universal agreement.

4 comments:

Miss E. said...

Wow, my very own response post! I'd better break this in to two parts:

“I've tried very hard to limit my discussion to "is a ritual which excludes transpeople appropriate at a public convention?" I recognize the Dianics' right to free association and to define their thealogy as they see fit. Whether I agree or disagree with their conclusions is irrelevant: I am not a member of their community and have no interest in joining. I felt that, for the purposes of working through the issue at hand, discussions about Dianic theology would only serve to derail the problems which could actually be solved by the Pantheacon organizers.”

In all fairness, my complaint about referendums on theological legitimacy also stem from lots of comments I’ve read in various places, more so than your actual blog posts. The discussion is going along, and someone pipes up, ever so constructively, with something along the lines of: “Worshiping a uterus is stupid anyway, I’d never want to do that, so they suck!” (Exaggerated for effect.)

“That being said, I think every religion is, and should be, subject to questioning about controversial tenets. ….. Often these questions are critical: sometimes they are put forth by people with hostile agendas. But they are part and parcel of an open society. While the Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of religion, it does not promise you a cheering section…..

I don’t disagree about every religion being subject to questioning regarding controversial tenents. Ideally the answers would be honest, consistent and heard, so that seekers and organizers can evaluate a given religion or sect for themselves. We’ll see, it’s much harder with decentralized traditions. The coven down the street may rise to the challenge admirably, and the one across town may remain unrepentant and unreformed! Who gets to define the brand, who’s making “us” look bad?

“I may add that Sarah is not only more fortunate than her cousin: she is more fortunate than those honored each year at the International Transgender Day of Remembrance. Transwomen are regularly beaten, murdered and discriminated against: as an SPLC report put it, many consider them to be "Disposable People."

No one can deny the importance of this issue. I think the need inclusive/safe /femine-centered space for Trans and Non-Trans women stem from the same misogynistic source in society. I’m not sure about issuing some sort of privilege penance, but this is the opportunity for women’s mystery traditions to work out how inclusivity is going to work, what it will look and feel like, in their coven/house/501 (3C) (and not just “them,” it’s a good opportunity for everyone’s organizations to check in with themselves and the wider community.)

Miss E. said...

Part Two:

“My major objection to "moon-blood mysteries" comes when they are used like literacy tests and poll taxes in the Jim Crow-era South. Invariably when pressed I've heard that yes, a cisgendered woman who had never experienced menarche for medical reasons would be welcomed at a Dianic "moon-blood
celebration," where a transwoman would not. “

Ooo! And here’s where my brain is just filled with helpful ways to reorganize Dianic cults and rituals! (Seriously, I was starting to write out potential approaches to cult and ritual in my reply, until I realized what I was doing!) I’m sure they’d be totally psyched at all the work I’m prepared to do for them…or not. The issue really is about if a restricted society or ritual is appropriate for a pan pagan/non Christian event. In that we completely agree. I think I’m probably in the minority with the breadth of what I might find potentially acceptable. If the program is balanced and inclusive overall, with clear communication, then maybe I’m not feeling as negative about that nifty Mithraic ritual I wasn’t allowed to attend, maybe I get to chat with one of their Augurs and compare Haruspicy techniques at the cocktail party and we both walk away the wiser. (I’m totally going to be disappointed by the real PCon when I go, aren’t I?)

On a more serious note, part of my comment on the value of the physical, biochemical experience of being female stems from an underlying subtext that doesn’t regard the embodied experience as legitimately powerful at all, especially if that embodied experience is female. Not so much in your posts, although it was definitely on my mind in the “warm, wet hole” section, but also from various commenters (likeI mentioned in part one,) and in unrelated conversations with people who identify more as “New Age.”

Kate LBT said...

“My major objection to "moon-blood mysteries" comes when they are used like literacy tests and poll taxes in the Jim Crow-era South. Invariably when pressed I've heard that yes, a cisgendered woman who had never experienced menarche for medical reasons would be welcomed at a Dianic "moon-blood celebration," where a transwoman would not.“

Julia Serano made this exact point in one of her spoken word pieces (which was adapted into her 2007 book "Whipping Girl"). Whether the argument is made about menstruation or socialization, many cissexuals when pressed admit that they would be discomforted by having a trans woman present who was socialized as a girl from early childhood on - as an increasing number of trans women now are. Which demonstrates that it's not REALLY about socially-normative vaginas, and it's not REALLY about socialization - it's REALLY about making a value judgment about who's really a woman and who's not.

Kate LBT said...

One of the things which I think EVERYONE on the other side of this argument has completely ignored is that this is not and has never been about forcing the Dianic tradition to accept "men" - or even about forcing them to accept trans women for that matter. What this is about, fundamentally, is that people should be able to trust that when a public event is for women, it is open to ALL women (you can be as transphobic as you want to in your personal space, but when you're out in public, quit it). Transitioning is enough of a minefield without having to suss out in detail whether someone is going to tell you at the door to an event "you're not enough of a woman to be here."

Post a Comment