ya hes cute…….but is he conscientious of the social inequalities and corruption in hierarchies of power that plague this world
“Ancient moon priestesses were called virgins. ‘Virgin’ meant not married, not belong to a man - a woman who was ‘one-in-herself’. The very word derives from a Latin root meaning strength, force, skill; and was later applied to men: virile. Ishtar, Diana, Astarte, Isis were all all called virgin, which did not refer to sexual chasity, but sexual independence. And all great culture heroes of the past…, mythic or historic, were said to be born of virgin mothers: Marduk, Gilgamesh, Buddha, Osiris, Dionysus, Genghis Khan, Jesus - they were all affirmed as sons of the Great Mother, of the Original One, their worldly power deriving from her. When the Hebrews used the word, and in the original Aramatic, it meant ‘maiden’ or ‘young woman’, with no connotations to sexual chasity. But later Christian translators could not conceive of the ‘Virgin Mary’ as a woman of independent sexuality, needless to say; they distorted the meaning into sexually pure, chaste, never touched. When Joan of Arc, with her witch coven associations, was called La Pucelle - ‘the Maiden,’ ‘the Virgin’ - the word retained some of its original pagan sense of a strong and independent woman. The Moon Goddess was worshipped in orgiastic rites, being the divinity of matriarchal women free to take as many lovers as they choose. Women could ‘surrender’ themselves to the Goddess by making love to a stranger in her temple.”
Monica Sjoo and Barbara Mor, The Great Cosmic Mother - Rediscovering the Religion of the Earth (via munstersandghosts)
*fans herself, flustered from all the anthropology and etymology* ohhh baby~
[citations needed], please. Because, um, this is all, well incorrect. Let’s start here: “Ancient moon priestesses were called virgins. ‘Virgin’ meant not married, not belong to a man - a woman who was ‘one-in-herself’. The very word derives from a Latin root meaning strength, force, skill; and was later applied to men: virile.”
Virgin: from the latin virgo: maiden, virgin, girl, unwedded woman.
Virile: from the latin vir: a man, esp. a hero
and as for the latin root meaning “strength, force, or skill”? Yeah, that’s probably a third, different word: vis: force, power
protip: not all words that sound like each other derive from the same root.
So, yeah, there’s no real evidence to support that claim. And knowing those roots only requires simple high school knowledge of latin, so the innaccurcy here makes me suspicious of all the other claims here as well.
I also find the mythological claims rather sketch - although I don’t know much outside of graeco-roman mythology, I do know that Diana was very much a virgin in the sense o f sexual chastity, a fact which is quite important to much of greek myth.
And Dinoysius wasn’t born of a virgin mother - his mother, semele, was impregnated by zeus. (Although I believe there are other versions in which his mother changes, the fact that he was fathered by zeus remains the same). And I’d like citations before I can believe some of those others.
Also, this is mostly speculation, but with regards to this “When the Hebrews used the word, and in the original Aramatic, it meant ‘maiden’ or ‘young woman’, with no connotations to sexual chasity.”
Fun fact: the word maiden itself has connotations of sexual chastity. In fact, many language’s words for “maiden” or “young woman” implicitly refer to a young woman before marriage, who was thus assumed to also be virginal.
So, while I can understand the idea of wanting to reclaim “virgin” in a new light, there are ways to do so without skewing or flat out misunderstanding and making up linguistic, mythological, and historical data. And in the end, trying to base a change in understanding on such flimsy “evidence” is just shooting yourself in the foot.
(Also, if anyone has more knowledge about any of the other mythologies mentioned here, I’d be curious to know more about how the actual mythology lines up with the claims here)
Sources: Oxford English Dictionary, 4 years of studying Latin in high school, assorted mythological texts.
As a Historian and Classicist, I can confirm that littlepaperfrogs' root analysis is correct, regarding the Latin.
Diana absolutely had ties to sexual charity. Astarte did not, she lent herself to war and sexual love. Ishtar as well, as she is kind of the Akkadian counterpart of (the West Semitic) Astarte. I’m not deeply familiar with Isis myth, but from what I remember the birth is not miraculous, she is impregnated by the dead Osiris. There are plenty of scholars out there looking at Isis as the original Madonna, Sabrina Higgins wrote a paper I’ve been meaning to look at, “Divine Mothers: The Influence of Isis on the Virgin Mary in Egyptian Lactans-Iconography*” that works off of Peter Brown’s work— he’s the first to seriously question the monolithic notions of “conflict” and Christian “triumph”.
Anyway. Sorry to debunk a good portion of this. This kind of lazy scholarship makes me skeptical of the whole, but I’d love to buy into it. Maybe I’ll pick up the book.