I personally would to hear about someone else thoughts on that but its up to you so no pressure.
Sure! I'll send it as a reply and if you think it warrants a post I'll make a thread with it
---------
I do not like the common interpretations of divine feminine and divine masculine. I find both to be incredibly limiting, based in bioessentialism, and they depend on definitions of masculinity and femininity from a specific demographic.
Now a large part of this has to do with the fact that I myself am genderqueer, and thus, I do not feel strongly connected to how masculinity and femininity are presented in the systems and society around me. And it is certainly possible that these concepts are seen in vastly differently ways in cultures outside of my own.
Which is why I say I do not like the common interpretations of these concepts.
For starters, a person is not inherently closer to, or further away from the gods based whether or not they have a certain pouch in their pelvic cavity. A pouch that mind you, is smaller in volume than a baseball...
A certain set of genitalia is not a โportalโ to the heavens or to the gods. It is also not something that makes anyone inferior just on the basis of them having this set of genitalia. It just a natural part of a human body.
In a similar vein, a person is not inherently superior, or closer to the gods because they have a different set of genitalia. They are not somehow more suitable of being leaders or โholy servantsโ because their DNA dictated that they developed a certain way. A person is not automatically better because they can produce cells that can cause a pregnancy in another person. Again, it is just a natural part of a human body.
I also find that the common interpretations of these concepts depend on definitions of femininity and masculinity that are very western. Very white. Definitions of such that fall apart the minute that anyone is non-conforming in their expression or their identity, or is anyone other than white. This doesnโt even begin to get into the intricacies of people who are intersex, which can range from conditions as uncommon as complete estrogen insensitivity syndrome, to something as common as PMOS (formerly PCOS).
It is my understanding that these terms used to mean something different, and they still mean something different in certain groups. In some cases it has a much more literal definition โ of divine beings that are either masculine or feminine. Or the feminine and masculine aspects of these divine beings. But I still find that people turn to very strict and specific interpretations to define the masculinity and femininity of the divine.
People always say that femininity in the divine is this or that. And they say that masculinity in the divine are these things and those things. But they never explain why those things are feminine or masculine. They never explain what makes those things inherently feminine or masculine.
There are plenty of goddesses of war โ something people associate with masculinity. And there are plenty of gods of fertility โ something people associate with femininity.
Now none of this is to say that peopleโs connection to their masculinity or femininity should not be incorporated into their practices at all. In fact if the incorporation is affirming, and does not bring others down, I can see why it would help many people โ especially those who are gender-nonconforming or have variations in how they identify with their gender.
I just find that the common way I see people talking about divine femininity and divine masculinity to be very constricting, and sometimes bordering on fetishistic.
