"During a 300-year period between 3-5 million women were tortured and killed by the 'Holy Inquisition," an institution founded by the Roman Catholic Church to suppress heresy. This surely ranks together with the Holocaust as one of the darkest chapters in human history. The sacred feminine was declared demonic, and an entire dimension largely disappeared from human experience. Other cultures and religions such as Judaism, Islam, and even Buddhism also suppressed the female dimension, although in a less violent way. Women's status was reduced to child-bearers and men's property. Males who denied the feminine even within themselves were now running the world, a world that was totally out of balance. The rest is history or rather a case history of insanity."
E. Tolle A New Earth

One of the first recorded genocide was a gender-cide.. women.

Now, I think it's safe to say that this is not news to many of you, but I just posted a reply to Law about honor killing and used some stats about violence against women in the US... and I got to thinking about the women in Africa, Darfur and Somalia.. as rape was used as a weapon against those 'not of the right tribe'...

Have we progressed? Healed this imbalance in any apparent way?

Eckhart also states:" The sacred feminine, because it is suppressed, is felt by many women as emotional pain."

Do you agree with this.. not?

If it's an imbalance then it should be on some level a shared imbalance in both men and women.. right?

Got any thoughts on all of this?

One caveat: I'm not really interested in a feminist political response.. but a deeper discussion.. (as usual)..

Wanderingspyrte wrote

Certainly through the ages women have been oppressed. LM of course was referring specifically to the stoning of women in Iran. How can we recognize the crimes against women being committed in Iran without looking in our own neighborhoods? How did this happen?

Wandering, you gave some excellent background material, beginning with the Holy Inquistion. The Catholic priests during that time were either imbeciles who could neither read or write or they could and were too rich to care (or cared too much about losing their riches!)... Christians tolerated European paganism, but when that tolerance ended, it ended abruptly and in violent ways. The worst effected were of course the mid wives... the priests had no idea about the workings of the woman's body, how a baby was born, the channelling of life
and the birth of a child and the dangers it presented a woman and the baby. So bye bye midwives and Diana your Goddess! Of course pan was replaced with the devil...

At least in western culture today's suppression of woman goes back to that dark time in history. There is a bit of a paradox though, as we still hold reverance to the earth goddess, and call her Mother Nature. For every rape of a woman, men are opening doors for others and fighting for them. We honor women, yet put them down. Sort of a "double bind"...

I've never read either Tolle or Eckhart, but I'd like to know what "300-period" was cited. The Inquisition was started in the late 12th century (the Medieval Inquisition,) continued through the Spanish Inquisition, the Portuguese Inquisition and, finally, the Roman Inquisition. The Spanish and Portuguese Inquisitions spread into the 'New World' through those countries' conquests. The Spanish Inquisition is the one most people think of when they think of the Inquisition, because of Tomas Torquemada.

Spain had been conquered by the Moors (Muslim) and when Spain regained its independence, it was faced with two major groups--the Moors and Hasidic Jews. Both populations were forced to convert to Roman Catholicism. Them were baptised Catholic, but retained the practices of their 'former' religions, something the RC Church considered 'heretical,' because it often went against the teachings of the Fundamentalist Roman Catholic Church.

Women were not necessarity targeted by the Church. Blasphemy, the 'crime' that led to witch trials, was tried in civil courts. It was only after centuries that witch trials; for example, the Salem witch trials, were held by religious courts and they were Protestant.

Having said all that, the Sacred Feminine is archetypal and appears in many forms and in every culture. It has to do with the mystery of birth--regeneration--and, of course, has its roots in pre-history. It's the Yin/Yang. It's right-brain vs left-brain. It's, to cite popular writing, 'Women are from Venus; Men are from Mars.' It's the quest for the grail--the most important symbol in human thought.

A good read on this is Steven Katz, The Holocaust of Historical Context.

Although the secular courts decided most of the witch cases, the church exercised much influence. And yes Liz during the Holy Inquisition. This is all historical fact and is easily found. Millions of women perished.

And millions of men died, as well. The thing is, if the Sacred Feminine is to live and be recognized for what it is, men have to recognize their 'other sides'--their 'feminine sides.' This is the Yin/Yang of human psychology. We all have both male and female traits inherent in us. What dominates is the number of chromosomes. But that's just the start. A person can be born either male or female, depending on the x/y chromosome. But what do those chromosomal counts mean in society--that a baby girl is dressed in pink--a passive color--while a baby boy is dressed in blue--a primary color?

During the feminiist movement in the US, women recognized and declared the masculine side of their wholeness. They did so in order to achieve economic parity within a male dominated society. However, in doing so, they gave up the Sacred Feminine.

And what does it mean at a wedding when the girl is dressed in white--an active color--and the boy is dressed in black--a funereal passive color?

first let me apologize for using the author Eckhart Tolle's name in away that made him sound like 2 people.. one guy. His reference notes don't include any thing for the quote I used, but I'm guessing it's because it's fairly common knowledge (or at least readily accessible).

I found a wide range of information but am comfortable saying that women and girls constituted 50%- 95% of the deaths during what is commonly referred to as the Witch Hunts (roughly beginning in the late 1400's - early 1800's)

"The witch hunts officially began in 1478. They targeted mainly females, which led the term "witch hunt" to become synonymous with the term "woman hunt". The Church patriarchy shifted its focus from the smaller population of healers onto the larger female population in general as a result of the rising fear of female power. The general belief that women were oversexed and bestial (regardless of their true sexual behavior) gained currency; therefore, females were regarded as unchaste beings who were dangerous to men. For centuries, women were considered to be grounded in the physical; their ability to menstruate and give birth were two things men could not control. In addition to the disgust these natural cycles evoked in men, there was also a fear of their power. A growing connection was being made between female sexuality and evil. Somehow women were at fault for every negative event that occurred, especially if it involved a man's sexual capabilities. Adding to the fear of female power within the spoken or practiced realm, the female body was increasingly considered to be the embodiment and source of sin, as epitomized by Eve. " Lindsay Nicole Symmonds


I realized from your reply that.. I posted from a different set of understandings ... And it took me a bit to figure that out.. and I'm not sure how to put it words.. other than 'consciousness'. Now, I'm not saying universal consciousness is gendered.. only that for hundreds of years.. female energy has been stifled. It has changed from a violent religious period to be ingrained and embedded into the very fabric of who we are and aren't, as people and as women. Directly, indirectly, some countries/cultures better than others... disclaimer disclaimer, disclaimer...

I do not disagree with you that there's an inner balance of these energies in each of us as well as say.. a collective energy. I mean hang out with 8-9 year old boys and you quickly hear 2 of the most heinous of name-callings .. 'You're a girl!' and 'You're gay'.. so yeah men have their own path to walk in this as well...

but baby boys aren't being killed in a continuing death toll that reaches back centuries...

"The phenomenon of female infanticide is as old as many cultures, and has likely accounted for millions of gender-selective deaths throughout history. It remains a critical concern in a number of "Third World" countries today, notably the two most populous countries on earth, China and India. In all cases, specifically female infanticide reflects the low status accorded to women in most parts of the world; it is arguably the most brutal and destructive manifestation of the anti-female bias that pervades "patriarchal" societies. It is closely linked to the phenomena of sex-selective abortion, which targets female fetuses almost exclusively, and neglect of girl children." (www.gendercide.org)

The mind-set of people who even think of killing their own children.. let alone millions of baby girls.. that being female is not good enough, that girls are expendable.. this is beyond my comprehension. and it goes far deeper than third-world countries.. deeper than simple sex-specific chromosomes(biology)..

Hey, I don't deny that witch hunts involved more women than men, although men were also involved. All I was trying to say was the Inquisition was more concerned with heresy than with blasphemy, which was left to secular courts. I just don't like it when a topic is presented in a one-sided manner.

Yes, women have been subjugated out of men's fears. But women have also allowed that subjugation. Why? Certainly not because they're afraid of men! Women are grounded in the physical. Because of our menses, we are the time binders.

But we're also the dreamers, the nurturers and the vessels that hold humanity in our grip. I could say that, without women, there would be no continuance of the human race--but the same is true for men.

That's the balance of nature.

I think the Church understood the continued power of the pagan fertility goddesses and that's what it was afraid of. And, yet, fertility is, perhaps, the most important aspect of human life. Fertile land creates food that sustains life. A fertile woman creates life that sustains the human race.

The imbalance occurs when the masuline characteristics overshadow the feminine characteristics--and yet, we all have both.

I think that we've made small progess, in the sense that much of the world is aware of the idea of an imbalance (in terms of gender equality and humanity as a whole). But I can't say that this imbalance is even really close to being healed. In fact, it seems to me that the more aware we become of it, the more that we (humanity as a whole) becomes fragmented and opposed (i.e., men in certain cultures strive that much harder to "put women in their place," etc.). And that's not to say that we shouldn't remain aware of it; I just think that it's a long-standing divide to overcome.



I think that such suppression may be one component of emotional pain. Do I know that as fact? Nope. But I surmise that there are several factors at work with regards to the awareness of emotional pain.



Oh, most definitely (IMO). For example, I don't think that the male sex is exhibiting any sort of strength (but rather fear and weakness) when committing atrocities against the female sex in an attempt to feel superior. (The fact that some men can't feel whole and strong alongside whole/strong women suggests an imbalance, to my mind.)

Recently (within the past couple of weeks), it was told to me that the reason God chose to be revealed as the Father, is because a father's role is optional. A mother's role is not so. Without the womb, there would be no child. Much of what a mother does is driven by instinct; to the point of being willing to lay her life down for her child at a moment's notice.

With men I don't see the same driving force present toward child rearing. Through reason and logic we determine that it is best for us to treat our childern nicely! Society rewards us for doing so. (So do our wives! )

On the whole then, a father's influence into a child's life is a bonus over and above what only a mother can provide. Extra food, extra security; an extra set of hands to lighten the load and make life more enjoyable.

Of course there are the exceptions to this. Parents who spend all their time fighting, fathers who take from the family instead of supplying more. But on the average, when things are as logic and nature intended, fathers provide something extra for the family.

So if God originally chose to reveal Himself to us as a Father under these conditions, what would this speak about Him? For one, that we are cabale of survival without Him. Two, that as children those who have Him are beter off than those without Him. Three, that abusive and self-serving imitations or representations of Him are not really Him.


IDK. This is a new line of thinking for me, so I thought I'd try it out here and see what you all think about it. If the "sacred masculine" is defined as such, how would that reflect back on the sacred feminine?