Guest guest Posted July 14, 2003 Report Share Posted July 14, 2003 I generally cringe when I see people discussing the "Goddess Movement," as if it were simply some New Age flavor of the week or a marketing niche. In the case of Shaktism, at least (which is mentioned below in passing) we're dealing with a wholly legitimate, ancient and powerful religious tradition. Still, I saw this article in the Boston Globe on Saturday, and it made some legitimate points, and I figured some members of this forum might enjoy it: GODDESS MOVEMENT LOOKS TO STONEHENGE'S FEMININE SIDE By Don Aucoin, Globe Staff, 7/12/2003 When a British medical journal published a researcher's theory this week that Stonehenge was designed 5,000 years ago as a fertility symbol in the form of female genitalia, some headline writers reacted with amusement. "The Vagina Monoliths: Stonehenge Was Ancient Sex Symbol," read a headline in The Observer of London. CBC News in Canada proclaimed: "Stonehenge Mystery Solved: It's a Girl." To adherents of the goddess movement, though, the new theory is serious business. They are hoping this woman-centered interpretation of Stonehenge, a monument with a unique hold on the world's imagination, will help build momentum toward a recognition of what they call "the feminine sacred" and further add to the ranks of their growing movement. "In the circles of women priestesses, we have always believed the stone circles were somehow linked to fertility -- but fertility in a much broader sense," Hemitra Crecraft, a self-described "Dianic priestess," said yesterday from Malvern, Pa. "Returning to these ideas, and visiting the whole principle of the sacredness of the earth, is imperative if we're going to create a sustainable future." Crecraft hopes that the Stonehenge theory will be seen as a reminder of a time when societies were constructed around a belief in female deities -- a belief, she says, that holds a message and lesson for our own war-torn, environmentally ravaged time. The author of the research paper in Britain's Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, retired gynecology professor Anthony Perks, touched on that theme, writing that Stonehenge "could represent, symbolically, the opening by which Earth Mother gave birth to the plants and animals on which the ancient people so depended." Some archeologists have scoffed at the theory that Stonehenge was built to resemble a part of the female anatomy. They note that the builders of Stonehenge could not have seen the monument from above, as Perks did, and that the monument was not constructed all at once but rather modified repeatedly over 1,500 years. Moreover, Cynthia Eller, author of "The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory: Why an Invented Past Won't Give Women a Future" (Beacon Press), said the evidence does not support the notion that human society was more female-centered thousands of years ago or that "there was a patriarchal revolution in 3,000 BC that destroyed all this and brought us to where we are now." As for the new theory, she observed wryly, "Stonehenge is phallic in a way you can't ignore." Still, she said, the Stonehenge story "can't help but be good for the goddess movement." That movement has gained force in recent years, as followers, many inspired by feminist thinking, have sought an alternative to male- centered mainstream religion. Proponents of the goddess movement say that millions of people across the world to a belief in female deities or to a belief that God can be seen as both female and male. "Women in particular feel that within organized religion, there isn't any honor of what they hold sacred: the life process, the birth of their children, their sexual experiences," said Elinor Gadon, a visiting scholar at the Brandeis University Women's Studies Research Center and author of "The Once and Future Goddess" (HarperCollins). Yet even some mainstream denominations, Eller said, have "drawn on ideas and energy that have been pioneered in goddess spirituality" by opening the door to discussion groups focusing on "the feminine nature of God." The goddess movement, she said, is "an effective way of getting at our preconceptions about God's maleness and raising people's awareness of how the God we talk about now is very gendered, and very narrow as a result. It excludes women." To capitalize on growing interest, tour companies have begun to organize trips to goddess temples in Malta, Egypt, India, and elsewhere; songwriter Laura Powers released a 1998 recording titled "Legends of the Goddess," inspired by the tales of a Celtic goddess. In this context, the Stonehenge story created a considerable buzz. At the California Institute of Integral Studies in San Francisco, two students were so excited by the Stonehenge news that they rushed to tape up an article about the theory on a campus bulletin board. Mara Lynn Keller, head of the institute's women's spirituality program, said yesterday that she believes Stonehenge "represents not only the genitalia of the Great Mother but her womb. The entry in and out of the womb was the way people celebrated their relationship to the regeneration of life and tapped into those powers of the earth and the cosmos." Belief in goddesses takes a different form, with different names, depending on the culture. Crecraft, for instance, believes in the Great Mother, of whom Diana, Aphrodite, Athena, and other goddesses embody different aspects. The cofounder of Woman Wisdom, a women's spirituality program near Philadelphia, she leads ceremonial circles of dancing, drumming women to mark full moons and solstices, when "there is a dispensation of energies on the earth," she said. Crecraft acknowledges the "male principle" is present at Stonehenge in the form of monolithic stones, but she insists that the monument's circles are what "builds the sacred space." And she hopes when others look at Stonehenge from now on, they will draw a link between the past and the present in a way that helps build the goddess movement. "In orthodox religions, God has been worshiped as a male, and that has brought men great privilege," said Crecraft. "It has not been so favorable for women. We have lived in a patriarchal social system for the past several thousand years. The goddess-rising is to bring the balance, so individuals can have an option." This story ran on page C1 of the Boston Globe on Saturday, July 12, 2003. © Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company. URL: http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/193/living/Goddess_movement_looks_to _Stonehenge_s_feminine_side+.shtml Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2003 Report Share Posted July 14, 2003 Namaste: This is very interesting. I've pulled out the quotes below that really irk me. Ironic that archeologists cannot seem to pass a single upright monument without making note of it's phallic connotations, but they've been staring at Stonehenge for hundreds of years scratching their heads and shrugging their shoulders. "Hmmmm, can't think of what it might be, can you?" Obviously some of those guys couldn't find the "central altar" with a map. And though the builders of Stonehenge could not see their work from above, neither could the creators of the Nazca lines in Peru. But that didn't seem to stop them, and as there's nothing overtly female about the Nazca lines we're not embroiled in any rediculousness about whether or not they were created to look the way they do with intention on the part of their builders. I'm glad Ms. Eller can laugh at herself, after all, that she cannot ignore the phallic nature of any protruding architecture says more about her than about the intentions of their creators. However, I do welcome her perspective on the debate. I don't think that she is credible, but I feel that skeptics keep us honest, even when they are not. Her work is important because counterpoints are important, but that also makes her critics and reviewers important. I'm glad that this "discovery" about Stonehenge is getting some attention. I'm sure that it's a relief to some people out there still searching blindly for the Goddess. We need Her. Namaste, prainbow <<Some archeologists have scoffed at the theory that Stonehenge was built to resemble a part of the female anatomy. They note that the builders of Stonehenge could not have seen the monument from above, as Perks did, and that the monument was not constructed all at once but rather modified repeatedly over 1,500 years. Moreover, Cynthia Eller, author of "The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory: Why an Invented Past Won't Give Women a Future" (Beacon Press), said the evidence does not support the notion that human society was more female-centered thousands of years ago or that "there was a patriarchal revolution in 3,000 BC that destroyed all this and brought us to where we are now." As for the new theory, she observed wryly, "Stonehenge is phallic in a way you can't ignore." >> , "Devi Bhakta" <devi_bhakta> wrote: > I generally cringe when I see people discussing the "Goddess > Movement," as if it were simply some New Age flavor of the week or a > marketing niche. In the case of Shaktism, at least (which is > mentioned below in passing) we're dealing with a wholly legitimate, > ancient and powerful religious tradition. Still, I saw this article > in the Boston Globe on Saturday, and it made some legitimate points, > and I figured some members of this forum might enjoy it: > > GODDESS MOVEMENT LOOKS TO STONEHENGE'S FEMININE SIDE > <Clipped> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2003 Report Share Posted July 14, 2003 Namaste, Please understand that the irksome part would be the 3 paragraphs directly below my signature. I included a portion of DB's thoughtful original only for context, not at all to indicate any degree of displeasure. Yours in the service of a Goddess surely amused by my fallibility, prainbow , "prainbow61" <paulie- rainbow@u...> wrote: > Namaste: > > This is very interesting. I've pulled out the quotes below that > really irk me. > > Ironic that archeologists cannot seem to pass a single upright > monument without making note of it's phallic connotations, but > they've been staring at Stonehenge for hundreds of years scratching > their heads and shrugging their shoulders. "Hmmmm, can't think of > what it might be, can you?" Obviously some of those guys couldn't > find the "central altar" with a map. > > And though the builders of Stonehenge could not see their work from > above, neither could the creators of the Nazca lines in Peru. But > that didn't seem to stop them, and as there's nothing overtly female > about the Nazca lines we're not embroiled in any rediculousness about > whether or not they were created to look the way they do with > intention on the part of their builders. > > I'm glad Ms. Eller can laugh at herself, after all, that she cannot > ignore the phallic nature of any protruding architecture says more > about her than about the intentions of their creators. > > However, I do welcome her perspective on the debate. I don't think > that she is credible, but I feel that skeptics keep us honest, even > when they are not. Her work is important because counterpoints are > important, but that also makes her critics and reviewers important. > > I'm glad that this "discovery" about Stonehenge is getting some > attention. I'm sure that it's a relief to some people out there still > searching blindly for the Goddess. > > We need Her. > > Namaste, > > prainbow > > > > <<Some archeologists have scoffed at the theory that Stonehenge was > built to resemble a part of the female anatomy. They note that the > builders of Stonehenge could not have seen the monument from above, > as Perks did, and that the monument was not constructed all at once > but rather modified repeatedly over 1,500 years. > > Moreover, Cynthia Eller, author of "The Myth of Matriarchal > Prehistory: Why an Invented Past Won't Give Women a Future" (Beacon > Press), said the evidence does not support the notion that human > society was more female-centered thousands of years ago or > that "there was a patriarchal revolution in 3,000 BC that destroyed > all this and brought us to where we are now." > > As for the new theory, she observed wryly, "Stonehenge is phallic in > a way you can't ignore." >> > > > > , "Devi Bhakta" > <devi_bhakta> wrote: > > I generally cringe when I see people discussing the "Goddess > > Movement," as if it were simply some New Age flavor of the week or > a > > marketing niche. In the case of Shaktism, at least (which is > > mentioned below in passing) we're dealing with a wholly legitimate, > > ancient and powerful religious tradition. Still, I saw this article > > in the Boston Globe on Saturday, and it made some legitimate > points, > > and I figured some members of this forum might enjoy it: > > > > GODDESS MOVEMENT LOOKS TO STONEHENGE'S FEMININE SIDE > > > <Clipped> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.