You've probably already subscribed to our RSS feed, followed us on Twitter, and joined our Facebook page. (You're so Web 2.0!)
But have you checked out our new Esoteric Book Club? First pick is Robert Anton Wilson's Quantum Psychology. Participate here!

This is a subject I’ve been frustrated by for some time now, and I’d like to air my thoughts and see what you think about it.

The basic gender assignment which are still frequently in use today date back to the 5th century BCE.  The fragmentary writings that survive from Empedocles, among other things, establish the four roots (later elements) as Earth, Air, Fire and Water, and that further, these are associated with specific gods: Hera, Zeus, Hades, and Nestis (Persephone).

These associations had complex geographical and mythical attributes which are rarely (if ever) taken into consideration. They don’t specify mystic sexual or gender-based properties inherent in the elements themselves, but rather describe mystic attributes relevant to these specific divine couples.

Taken out of context, the elements often get (mis)classed as: Earth/female, Air/male, Fire/male, Water/female. This tradition has become entrenched in modern occultism, and it is patently absurd.

If we take a surface reading of gender stereotypes as presented, they make little sense. Is the person the fiery temper represented by nurturing Earth or deep water simply because she’s female? Must  the practical labourer who’s held the same job for so many decades be viewed as intellectual air or fiery inspiration, simply because he has a penis? It simply doesn’t hold up, and perhaps it never really has.

We can still make use of the elemental associations in light of what they represent, for example:

• Earth – fertile, steadfast, practical
• Air – intellectual, remote, changeable
• Fire – passion, inspiration, transformation
• Water – emotional, nurturing, hidden

and various esoteric attributes, but we need not pretend these associations must be attributed to binary gender conventions.

Objects are no more imbued with mystical power than abstract concepts. The sword or wand ought not represent “male energy” (whatever that is) due to a faint phallic resemblances; there are no physical resemblances between a chalice or pentacle that suggest “femininity”. There are more relevant – and more potent – concerns inherent in the symbolism without forcing genders upon them.

Do we lose anything by dropping these arbitrary gender distinctions? What do we gain?

Sexism is a topic that came up in a forum I recently started participating in. None contested that it was endemic in occulture, but few seemed interested in exploring why this was.

I know women who have been asked “who are you here with?” when they attended events. Several have had men try to “explain” technical points to them, unprompted. In my own experience, after choosing a stone to represent an element at a gathering, I overheard a man complain that I should not have been “allowed” to choose Fire.

The most common reaction reaction to the above was a dropped jaw and a private resolution to never attend such events again. And they don’t. Yet many (men, usually) seem bewildered by low attendance of women in their group/temple/lodges.

We have lost essential voices of dedicated magickians because they were treated poorly and edged out of the public sphere. They post profound things in friends-locked spaces on LiveJournal, are brilliant on IM, in private conversation  and other “safe” spaces where they won’t be shut down. Few publish books, and those that do stick to other “safe” topics like occult biography and history. 

How did we let this happen? What can be done about it?

It should hardly seem surprising that something called “chaos magick” is constantly in flux, both in terms of what gets classed as chaos magick, and in who it attracts.

I was first introduced to the subject by some English bloke on IRC in a random Wicca chatroom who later, through a series of unlikely circumstances, became my husband. He introduced names I’d never heard of before: Austin Osman Spare, Peter J Carroll, Robert Anton Wilson – people with three names writing weird stuff.

It was refreshing. I was young, and apart from a few friends in high school, I didn’t know anyone else who was interested in magick. Until I found the chaotes, all I knew were religious Pagans who left me empty, or pedantic ceremonialists who bickered over trivia that seemed unnecessary.

From there I devoured everything I could find: Ray Sherwin, Phil Hine, Stephen Mace, Jan Fries, Steve Wilson, Ramsey Dukes, Jaq Hawkins, Hakim Bey, ye gods even Adrian Savage, simply because the word “chaos” was in the title. The books were difficult to find, expensive and experimental; the websites were raw and their authors approachable. Continue reading »

Rending the Veil is an online occult magazine. Last ish they ran a piece by Donald Tyson called “Atheism – The Real Enemy“, in which Tyson ranted about atheism, demanding Christians and Pagans band together to take up arms against what he perceives as the Atheist Threat.

It was paranoid and weird, and as an atheist and a magickian I took exception to this and, of course, responded. My response is riffs off Tyson’s, “Ignorance – The Real Enemy” and actually explains what atheism is, how it differs from agnosticism and demonstrates that atheism and magick can and do indeed co-exist peacefully. Another essay will follow in the next issue which will explore this in more detail, but this is a start.

Someone called Gray Glamer also responded with “Does Materialism Threaten Paganism?” which is also worth checking out.

Read ‘em, let me know what you think.

In other news, my copy of The Progradior Correspondence: Letters by Aleister Crowley, C. S. Jones, & Others came in yesterday, and so did a copy of Aleister Crowley: A Modern Master, by John Moore, published by Mandrake of Oxford – expect a review of the latter in the coming weeks.

Last week, Alan Chapman and Duncan Barford of The Baptist’s Head and Open Enlightenment were kind enough to answer several questions I put to them.  I have edited the questions for the sake of brevity and to make myself look less a twit.  Initially only Duncan was had agreed to participate in the interview, leading to a change in tone of my questions.

Duncan and Alan both demonstrate a lot of growth in their thought, and I believe many points I touch on rely on legacy material. I hope you enjoy.