just to be a devil's advocate... or whatever the equivalent of the devil in Wicca would be...
It sounds like the repudiation for being associated with feminine energy as almost reactionary masculinity. I must preface this with the fact that my grasp of Wiccan spirituality is limited... but in some ways it sounds like queers in Wicca have the potential to destabilize the notion that the God and Goddess are two distinct and separate entities. If queers have access to both of these energy currents, then perhaps these energies are more closely linked. It would be more plausible for the God and Goddess to be less distinctly defined, than queer wiccans being some magically exceptional practitioners. I think that you can still have ideas like the God and Goddess that still have queer spaces.
Lots of good points here. I see why Penczak's statements bother you. Being a gay witch myself, and being very interested in gender issues, I wonder what the core issue at work here is.
For a great many people, there is certainly that sense of heterosexual bias in modern paganism, especially Wicca. But there is more going on. It's not just about Wicca, and it's not just about heterosexual vs homosexual gender-issues. It's not about properly redefining our concepts of 'masculine' and 'feminine.' What it comes down to in the end, is ELIMINATING our concepts of Masculine and Feminine.
I'm not sure what Christopher was trying to say here, but for me it comes down to a realization that every gender and sex has it's own set of mysteries, and perhaps the energy of each gender and sex will have a different flavor. Truly though, every person has a unique energy, and they are all valid and important. Our culture tends to divide these energies into Male and Female, whether or not that has anything to do with them.
To me the important thing is not whether my energy is masculine, or feminine, but whether my energy is healthy and expresses who I am. If I am trying to portray myself energetically as something that doesn't resonate, then I am out of congruence and need to re-evaluate that portrayal.
I understand the desire to force our culture to recognize that taking it up the ass doesn't make us somehow less of a 'man,' but I also feel deeply that we need to get over our need to be recognized as 'men.' The gender and sex dichotomies that our culture throws in our face constantly are harmful at their base. I recognize that when someone tells me that wearing my hair long, and down, is 'not masculine' it bothers me. It bothers me more because they think I should be 'masculine' than because I feel I should portray as 'masculine.' The entire concept of masculinity vs femininity needs to be thrown out the window.
As far as modern paganism goes, I do think there is value in the recognition of a God and a Goddess. I'm not wiccan, so I don't really find the culturally-neutral nameless version of 'the God' and 'the Goddess' to be meaningful to me. I think there is beauty in the myth, but I also find beauty in the myth of the Phoenix, the force of creative fire that burns away shadows and resurrects itself, giving birth to itself over and over. And in the earth-dragon, sleeping and waking in the land beneath us, representing the power of nature and the balanced earth energy of life.
In the Brotherhood of the Phoenix, we use a modern myth of the Queer God, whose mythological cycle encapsulates the journey of the gay male, of his relation to our modern world, culture, families, and personal lives. We attribute his journey to eight experiences, or faces, of the life of a gay man. Among the others, one of those faces is that of the androgyne, who reconciles all opposites. Male and Female are opposite, but they are also one. It is this reconciliation that is important for us to remember. By realizing that our perceptions of opposites limit us, and moving to a place of reconciliation and eventually a place of unity, we can move beyond the cultural construct and into an acceptance of ourselves without some of those labels.
I think it's important for us to recognize our concept of self for what it is. If you believe in masculinity and feel that you are masculine, then embrace that. I think the issue is that we focus too strongly on dichotomies. Insisting that I, as a gay man, do not inherently have to be feminine, I also support that there is some fundamental, and IMPORTANT, difference between the masculine and the feminine. I don't really think there is. I think that we have to accept who we are, and if we fit some of these labels that's fine, but recognize that the labels are merely categories our culture has given us, and not important in the long run.
I can see the frustrations in these words.
Not being Wiccan myself, the concepts of the "uber-male" and "uber-female" elude me. I personally see no super-divine-male or female in the cosmos. While I completely understand this concept, and worked with it for years, I see the reality of the universe as much more diverse, expressive, and expansive then this.
I personally feel that attaching the energies of "male" and "female" to such concepts as active and passive, or aggressive and recessive, is insulting to all those who are, and aren't, involved. As the author, and commentors, have said, the ideas of what is masculine and feminine are more fluid then this. We socially need to move form a place where we demand things are related or connected, to understanding that they share similarities - but just because they share those similarities does not mean they should be forced to adopt them.
I can tell you are upset, but I think you misunderstood what Christopher meant. He is saying that REGARDLESS of your gender or orientation, we all have access to both masculine and feminine energies, and if you are angry about that, get mad at the words anima and animus, which are still taught in psychology today. He has no dogma, nor doctorine to push at people, and as a writer of Sons of the Goddess and Gay Witchcraft, and as a gay witch, I believe he holds gay, lesbian, transgendered people close to his heart, and has done much in a short period of time, to help them. He would not wish harm to you, nor to anyone. I think his point is to educate those who are not aware of certain aspects of being gay and spiritual to what that is like. He has come out of the closet not once, but twice. First for his orientation, then for his beliefs, he never tells anyone what it is to be masculine or feminine, or any such nonsense. He openly discusses his marriage to his husband and fellow other, Steve. He doesn't appear ashamed in anyway that he is gay, nor does he appear apologetic. He appears an attractive, honest, reasonable man, who loves and serves other gay men. He had a ritual for his gay men's group for Yule last nite..Sheesh and they say Christians are judgmental..Dude check yourself before you wreck yourself...
Thanks all for your comments, I'm in the middle of some personal drama, so there might be a while before I reply to your lovely opinions.
Briefly though, I would like to say to Francie that I *am* angry at the words "anima" and "animus" that are taught in Psychology. I love Jung's theories, and I think there is a lot of beauty in them. But he was very obviously influenced by the Victorian sexual mores of his peers.
I object to them because they rely on the simple formula of "male+female=everything". Which I detest. The Male/Female sexual binary is a fiction, the universe does not work on that schema. I have no issue with "male energy" refering simply to the energy belonging to males. But when it becomes something more than biology, when it becomes "archetypal" or "cosmic" or refers instead to "male personality traits" or any of that bollocks, then I'm afraid I take issue. Because it looks to me like taking pre-conceived gender ideas and elevating those prejudices to the level of Deity. Can we all say "idolatory"? Can we all say "prejudice"?
And I'm not one of the "they" that says Christians are judgemental. I'm one of the "they" that has a Bible and a Rosary on their altar. So please to stop on the assumptions and Christian bashing.
First of all, I would like to apologize for implying that "you" were bashing Christians, and I don't mean to say that I myself, would bash any other religion either.
I am very sorry that you are having a hard time, and I sincerely mean that.
I am only trying to say, that I can understand frustration with society, and with your views, and can very honestly respect them, as long as you don't bash Christopher Penczak. He actually says that homosexuals, and bisexuals, and transgendered people have greater access to spirituality in some respects than straights, and I am straight, but take no offense. I believe only, that he was actually agreeing with many of the comments/statements that you made, growing up as a gay male in an all boy's catholic school, where he wasn't a sporty type of person, he faced that stereotypes of what "males" are supposed to be and who he is. I would not think he would advocate a strict level of adherence to any more, norms, or soicetal demands, and would ask only that people be true to themselves. Whatever works for you, is your truth, and if you don't like the attitudes of others than just state your points, and views in a way that makes people think and see your wisdom, you will get many supporters, I would believe, as long as you aren't blaming someone for making a comment about what society says, that doesn't mean that he agrees with society, it's just a fact. Does society need to change? yes? I am glad you have a Bible and a rosary. My best friends are Christians, Cahtholics, Seventh Day Adventists, and Other, and I would ike to think we could all get along and learn from one another.
Again, I sincerely apologize if I offended you, but wanted to point out, that your asuumptions about Mr. Penczak were incorrect.
Blessed Be
Have a Happy Holidays
Francie
Francie,
You make some good points regarding the 'queer people are more spiritually aware than straight people' tact. I know lots of people who believe this. To my knowledge Christopher does as well, but I'm not sure it's important in this discussion.
The issue is not whether or not queer people are spiritual, but whether or not they have to define themselves in base 2. I for one, don't recall Christopher ever advocating the inherent masculinity or inherent femininity concept. But it's also easy to see how his statements can be taken that way. Knowing him and his partner, it's clear that they certainly don't live their lives according to our societal norms regarding gender, relationships, and lifestyle.
The important thing to remember here, is that Christopher, like the rest of us is just a guy trying to do the best he can. Like anyone else he's got crappy requirements of his job he has to live up to, things he has to do, and people he has to kill... well maybe not that last part. 
-- Seriously though, I think it's clear that his words as quoted above could have been more clear, but he fucks up just like the rest of us.
I find the ideas presented in the original post and the reslulting commentary to be very thought-provoking. I agree tht an individual doesn't have to possess female "energies" to be whole, but I do agree with some of the concepts that Penczak might be trying to express...Wiccans seem to elevate the male/female dynamic because in the human race (forget the rest of natue for a moment) that duality is required for our continued existence (at least without extreme scientific intervention). Historically, a male and a female were required to create a new person, as well as domestically usefull animals and plants. It is not surprising that they would elevate that dynamic and model to a divine level. As a gay man myself, I also do not feel remotely female, but I can acknowledge that many of the stereotypically female characteristics are present in me. It isn't that I am feminine, it is simply that I recognize that my definition of what makes a man lies outside mass society's limited tradition based limitations. I agree that it is not necessary for us to adapt any kind of female role as active gay men, but we putl on blinders if we pretend that religions practiced by a heterosexual majority are not going to reflect in some large way the male/female interaction that created every one of us....Including we gays....I find it flattering to think that we gays often hold in our personal identities the positive qualities that most of humanity assign to each of the sexes. It gives us a spiritual advantage of those individuals that feel obligated in any way to limit thier thinking and feelings to those more usually associated with their gender. I believe that we are truly lucky that most people simply expected us to move carelessly and purposely beyond any constrictive boundaries. I can be totally "man," and define that anyway I choose.
Michael Travis Jasper
author of the novel, "To Be Chosen"
Frankly, I feel like the vitriol that fuels missionaryposition's abhorrence of the male/female energy dualism, is itself subtly misogynistic.
First, to negate Penczak's male/female masculine/feminine energy metaphor, missionary position asserts that "I have a male body and a male identity." If Penczak really was that heteronormative in his religious metaphors, then why undermine it with an assertion of male identity (to the EXCLUSION of female energy within oneself?).
Secondly, I find fannie's interpretation of Penczak's words much more compelling. It is the idea that each individual contains both masculine and feminine energies. This destabilizes the idea of these energies being the sole propriety of one SEX of human beings as compared to another. Masculine/Feminine are no longer necessarily distinct to each sex, but instead are expediently diminished in their coersive power over our sexed bodies by calling attention to their complementary and dissolute relationship to one another. I would hardly call that heteronormative, especially considering the powerful implications Wiccan practitioners to "harness" these energies to express gender in whatever ways they choose, even if this means choosing to disavow a commitment to gender altogether.
I love your writing, and will keep reading.
Thank you, missionary, for initiating a worthwhile discussion. I've wrangled with wicca's gender binary for some time, and I'm still picking at the seams of the issue.
It seems to me that some of the biological claims being asserted here stink of assumption. Although science divides the human species into male and female, these are strictly typicalities, not rules. One in every two thousand human beings are born intersexed, and though this may not sound like much, it adds up to a rather large chunk of the population. To further complicate matters, there is genital variation. Are men with smaller penises more male? Are women with wider vaginas more female? If a woman is infertile, does she have "masculine energy"? It's clear that there is no linear correlation between gender and physiology. Nuff said.
For me, the heart of the conflict is the reduction of a diverse multitude of deities into one god and one goddess. In all of this hullaballoo about "fertility," wiccans tend to forget historical context. Diana, a name thrown around like all get out among witches, refers to a virgin deity. Myths tell us that Diana did not want or need a consort (in fact, she killed the hunter Actaeon just for seeing her naked). Most of the classical male deities had sexual and emotional relationships with other men (these "youths" were sometimes referred to as eromenos).
Perhaps we need a wiccan tradition that embraces a polytheistic politics of difference, acknowledging that the majority of humankind's archetypes do not fit into a simple binary. It follows suit that our attitudes towards each other might also undergo a change towards understanding difference rather than pushing the old "male energy-female energy" cart, which smells of horse shit, down the proverbial street of our religions.
Well, truth be told, you do nag like a bitch...
Commenting by HaloScan
