When reading this article, I began to think of examples of witches and goddess found in my childhood and found that my ideas about both were similar to the author’s own examples. The witch is a hag who lures kids into her house, the goddess has a flowing dress and beautiful hair, etc. However, I also thought of a few extra goddesses, for example, Gaia, from Captain Planet was the goddess of earth, who sent the Planeteers and their magic rings to do good in the world (please excuse my geekiness). I also thought of Greek mythology, though my experience here is largely limited to the Disney movie Hercules, which I realize is almost completely wrong according to the myths. Something that was right though, is the fact that there were goddesses AND gods in those myths, so I’m not sure where exactly these new witches were finding The Goddess and only the Goddess, no men allowed. Rountree says that “the participants are comfortably aware that they are deliberately creating a spiritual movement which appeals to them (while at the same time claiming it has some ancient roots).” It all seems a bit contrived to me.
On the whole, I think this article mostly confuses me…Why are they calling themselves witches? The article says, “The point of contemporary women publicly adopting the name "witch" is to expose the historical witch as an invention and to explicate the link between the wise woman and the witch and the process by which the former became anathematized — in short, to re-invent the witch.” Is the point of the movement to essentially “clear the names” of the wrongfully accused “witches” of the past and declare their independence from the patriarchic system of today? Why do they have to have a spiritual system at all to do that? Is the spiritual side supposed to be the way things used to be back in the day when Christians didn’t roam the earth and The Goddess was running things? If that is the case, how come they are allowed to add rituals and such from other cultures, like the African or Native American practices? Maybe I just don’t see why their supposed end goals necessitate all the rituals and solstices. Aren’t those types of things the things that witches were accused of in the past? Should they be doing things that the “historical witches” did if they are trying to re-invent them? Does any of this make sense?
I’m not sure how much “reclaiming agency” I’ve seen in my own life…Its lame, but the only kind of women I can think of who “reclaim agency” are those abused women in Lifetime movies, who finally take a stand for themselves or their children. They get out of their abusive situation and testify against their horrible husbands and some of them end up going to school to become a therapist to help women just like themselves. I’m sure this happens in real life too, but as I have never personally befriended a battered woman (not that I wouldn’t, mind you), then this is all I can think of at the moment.
On the whole, I think this article mostly confuses me…Why are they calling themselves witches? The article says, “The point of contemporary women publicly adopting the name "witch" is to expose the historical witch as an invention and to explicate the link between the wise woman and the witch and the process by which the former became anathematized — in short, to re-invent the witch.” Is the point of the movement to essentially “clear the names” of the wrongfully accused “witches” of the past and declare their independence from the patriarchic system of today? Why do they have to have a spiritual system at all to do that? Is the spiritual side supposed to be the way things used to be back in the day when Christians didn’t roam the earth and The Goddess was running things? If that is the case, how come they are allowed to add rituals and such from other cultures, like the African or Native American practices? Maybe I just don’t see why their supposed end goals necessitate all the rituals and solstices. Aren’t those types of things the things that witches were accused of in the past? Should they be doing things that the “historical witches” did if they are trying to re-invent them? Does any of this make sense?
I’m not sure how much “reclaiming agency” I’ve seen in my own life…Its lame, but the only kind of women I can think of who “reclaim agency” are those abused women in Lifetime movies, who finally take a stand for themselves or their children. They get out of their abusive situation and testify against their horrible husbands and some of them end up going to school to become a therapist to help women just like themselves. I’m sure this happens in real life too, but as I have never personally befriended a battered woman (not that I wouldn’t, mind you), then this is all I can think of at the moment.
3 comments:
Hi, Sarah,
I enjoyed reading all of the insightful questions you raised in your response. I was wondering about many of the same things. From what I gathered, feminist witches do have a dual purpose to reinvent the witch (clear the names of the accused) and embrace female power over the patriarchal system. But I agree that establishing a spiritual system to accomplish these goals is far-reaching. I think that the majority of society will look at feminist witches with skepticism, largely because (as you point out) there seem to be so many confusing points and discrepancies in their belief system. Honestly, I found it somewhat contrived myself.
I'm so glad that you not only touched on the witches, but also on goddesses. Disney movies really butcher a lot of this stuff, and many people discussed the evidently convoluted view of witches but failed to mention goddesses. Also, seriously... what is up with the whole "no boys aloud" mentality? Isn't that reverting back to the very sexist mantra that was supposedly the bane of their existence and suffering in the first place? Your response really made me think about that; kudos!
Also, your comment on the whole concept of reclaiming the agency via Lifetime Original Movies made me laugh. You have great stuff to say, and your layout totally rules!
I too had a lot of questions after reading this article. Though it's definitely intriguing, you're left a little bit more confused. Like you were getting at - goddesses, though exalted, aren't without the male "gods," and Rountree is definitely at fault if she thinks she can arouse a movement and expect others to take her seriously without any men... despite the many other problems you're forced to consider with this whole idea of a witch/goddess revolution.
Post a Comment