Analysis Of Christ's Article Why Women Need The Goddess
In Christ’s article, Why Women Need the Goddess, she explains the deep roots religious symbols and rituals have in people, religious or not. Even those unaligned with a religion, still take part in daily religious rituals, such as finding themselves in a church for a wedding or a funeral (WSIR, 164). Christ discusses how these symbols have derived from a patriarchal perspective in religion. It is not as easy as to merely reject these symbols; women must create their own and replace the standing religious symbols. One way Christ suggests to do so is with the symbol of the Goddess. Both Daly and Ruether have similar perspectives in respect to Christ’s reasons for the Goddess, and also offer insight as to why patriarchal religious symbols, including
…show more content…
God, should be reimagined.
Today, the need for the Goddess is not a universal necessity among women.
Whether a woman needs the Goddess as a religious symbol may be dependent upon her experiences. Christ, Daly, and Ruether were all women writing primarily in the 1970s and 80s. Historical context is important, because during this time is when women’s issues really began to come out publicly, as women sought educational, sexual, career, and pay equality. Since the 70s and 80s, women, primarily Western women, have gained more equality among men. This is not to say that Western women have completely eradicated inequality in their society, but they have significantly gained more political and social equality than they previously had. For women living in stringent culture or society focused on patriarchal views, these women may benefit more from the Goddess as a symbol than women who have grown up in a society that respects and equalizes both sexes.
Ruether suggests that in order to validate women, the poor, and the working, we must do more than simply adding in women; for example, referring to God as Father and Mother in church. Instead, Ruether uses the term “God/dess.” This term not only neutralizes the thought of God as the Father, but it also forces readers to stop and think. Because God has consistently been presumed synonymous with “male,” God/dess creates a discomfort in most readers. Using God/dess rids people of the notion of God equals male while not merely adding in feminine pronouns or titles. It
returns the divine to a state of non-gender.
Daly suggests the reimaging of God is necessary in order to break patriarchal restrictions in religion and value the experiences of women. Daly discusses the need to reinterpret the meaning of faith so we can break down the sexual caste system of religions. While Daly does not refer to the Goddess as a symbol as much as Christ does, she emphasizes the importance of telling and valuing the experiences of women who have been silenced through history and religion. She references the bonds of a sisterhood and recognizing the patriarchal restrictions that have been placed on women in the church. According the Daly, “ as long as God is imaged exclusively as male, then the male can feel justified in playing God” (WR, 316). The Goddess functions much differently than that of a male deity. There are different characteristics associated with a female deity rather than a male deity. While God presumably takes on the “male characteristics” of dominant, powerful, all-knowing, the Goddess is meant to assume the more “female characteristics” but in a way that does not adhere to the patriarchal standards of femininity. The Goddess is whoever a woman needs her to be. She is motherly, strengthening, and affirming. This is important because, partly, the Goddess functions as a celebration and normalization of women in relation to nature. Due to patriarchal restrictions, women have learned to be ashamed of their nature, specifically menstruation and aging. Having the Goddess as a symbol allows women to affirm the female body in all of its forms from all stages of life, death, and rebirth. Again, touching on a point that Daly made, if God is presumed male, males then assume the power of God over women. With the Goddess, women’s will and initiative in harmony with that of the will of others are valued. No power is taken away with the Goddess, but power is gained. With the Goddess, female power is legitimized and women are seen not as dependent upon or subordinate to men, but as independent and fully human. Christ applies the Goddess as a symbol of sisterhood and womanly power. The Goddess is used to uplift and bond the women who have been restricted by patriarchal standards. While not every woman or man may need the Goddess as a symbol today, there are still many others who may due to their societal conditions. Even for those who do not necessarily need the Goddess, she may remain a symbol for them to understand and appreciate. Despite taking a different route on how the symbol of the divine should be represented, Ruether agrees to Christ and Daly’s idea that in order to recognize women and break down the hierarchal system in religion between the sexes, we must replace our old symbols and reimagine faith away from the patriarchal norms of religion. The Goddess not only brings women more into religious practice, but also affirms the bonds between women, appreciates all forms women take, and gives women the independent status men have always had.
God, should be reimagined.
Today, the need for the Goddess is not a universal necessity among women.
Whether a woman needs the Goddess as a religious symbol may be dependent upon her experiences. Christ, Daly, and Ruether were all women writing primarily in the 1970s and 80s. Historical context is important, because during this time is when women’s issues really began to come out publicly, as women sought educational, sexual, career, and pay equality. Since the 70s and 80s, women, primarily Western women, have gained more equality among men. This is not to say that Western women have completely eradicated inequality in their society, but they have significantly gained more political and social equality than they previously had. For women living in stringent culture or society focused on patriarchal views, these women may benefit more from the Goddess as a symbol than women who have grown up in a society that respects and equalizes both sexes.
Ruether suggests that in order to validate women, the poor, and the working, we must do more than simply adding in women; for example, referring to God as Father and Mother in church. Instead, Ruether uses the term “God/dess.” This term not only neutralizes the thought of God as the Father, but it also forces readers to stop and think. Because God has consistently been presumed synonymous with “male,” God/dess creates a discomfort in most readers. Using God/dess rids people of the notion of God equals male while not merely adding in feminine pronouns or titles. It
returns the divine to a state of non-gender.
Daly suggests the reimaging of God is necessary in order to break patriarchal restrictions in religion and value the experiences of women. Daly discusses the need to reinterpret the meaning of faith so we can break down the sexual caste system of religions. While Daly does not refer to the Goddess as a symbol as much as Christ does, she emphasizes the importance of telling and valuing the experiences of women who have been silenced through history and religion. She references the bonds of a sisterhood and recognizing the patriarchal restrictions that have been placed on women in the church. According the Daly, “ as long as God is imaged exclusively as male, then the male can feel justified in playing God” (WR, 316). The Goddess functions much differently than that of a male deity. There are different characteristics associated with a female deity rather than a male deity. While God presumably takes on the “male characteristics” of dominant, powerful, all-knowing, the Goddess is meant to assume the more “female characteristics” but in a way that does not adhere to the patriarchal standards of femininity. The Goddess is whoever a woman needs her to be. She is motherly, strengthening, and affirming. This is important because, partly, the Goddess functions as a celebration and normalization of women in relation to nature. Due to patriarchal restrictions, women have learned to be ashamed of their nature, specifically menstruation and aging. Having the Goddess as a symbol allows women to affirm the female body in all of its forms from all stages of life, death, and rebirth. Again, touching on a point that Daly made, if God is presumed male, males then assume the power of God over women. With the Goddess, women’s will and initiative in harmony with that of the will of others are valued. No power is taken away with the Goddess, but power is gained. With the Goddess, female power is legitimized and women are seen not as dependent upon or subordinate to men, but as independent and fully human. Christ applies the Goddess as a symbol of sisterhood and womanly power. The Goddess is used to uplift and bond the women who have been restricted by patriarchal standards. While not every woman or man may need the Goddess as a symbol today, there are still many others who may due to their societal conditions. Even for those who do not necessarily need the Goddess, she may remain a symbol for them to understand and appreciate. Despite taking a different route on how the symbol of the divine should be represented, Ruether agrees to Christ and Daly’s idea that in order to recognize women and break down the hierarchal system in religion between the sexes, we must replace our old symbols and reimagine faith away from the patriarchal norms of religion. The Goddess not only brings women more into religious practice, but also affirms the bonds between women, appreciates all forms women take, and gives women the independent status men have always had.