Tumblr is an interesting place. In the corner that I occupy, it’s an open and accepting environment, focused on fighting the injustices in the world – with a healthy dose of cute animal pictures. One of the consistent topics to cross my dash is the representation of LGBTQIA in modern entertainment media. Questions regularly appear like “How are LGBTQIA+ portrayed?” and “Is the current portrayal sufficient, positive, and empowering, while challenging stereotypes?” When the answer to the second question is almost invariably no, then the question becomes “How do we make improve it?”
![Diana of Versailles". Marble, Roman artwork at Louvre [Public Domain]](https://wildhunt.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/312px-Diane_de_Versailles_Leochares.jpg)
Diana of Versailles”. Marble, Roman artwork at Louvre [Public Domain]
Fortunately, there’s been some progress. Orange is the New Black (a Netflix original) and In the Flesh (a BBC show that was not renewed) are hailed as forerunners in representation.
In addition to pushing for change in modern media, some people, including many Pagans, are looking to mythology for positive representations of LGBTQIA+ personalities. This is a great idea, because mythology is rich, containing a huge variety of Gods, Goddesses, heroes, demigods, and other characters and creatures.
However, there are some pitfalls in doing this, and some misconceptions based on stereotypes about a specific God or Goddess. For example, if I have to hear one more person say that Artemis is asexual/aromantic, I may scream – no matter how ‘clever’ of a pun it is to say she’s an “ace aro [arrow].”
Applying modern concepts of sexuality and gender to myths is an inexact science. Values, perceptions and societies have changed over the years. The Greeks in particular portrayed independent Goddesses as maidens – virgins even – which, in the modern sense would have them abstaining from all sex. However, looking at it in the context of Greek culture, it simply meant not allowing a man to control them or their life. Aphrodite was a maiden Goddess.
In addition, often times there are only a few myths that deal with how a God or Goddess specifically presents gender or sexuality. Thor, for example, doesn’t suddenly become gender-fluid because of one story about him cross-dressing in order to get Mjölnir back. By contract, Loki’s appearance in the same myth, when combined with stories of him magically changing genders, giving birth to a horse at one point, and generally presenting himself as the gender (and species) that’s most convenient, might suggest that he was more gender-fluid.
Despite these pitfalls and contrasting elements, mythology, with its diversity of representation, can offer comfort to young people struggling with their own gender identification.
For many, this is a very touchy subject. I am bi, but cisgendered. I don’t know some of the struggles that others go through – and can’t ever really know. But I do listen, and apply what I’ve learned to what I know about mythology.
As Pagans, many of us take this concept further by working directly with the Gods and Goddesses to see how they feel about this subject. Within our living religions, the Gods can be vocal about their opinions, which evolve our understanding just as much as the rest of our culture. It should follow, then, that how we view the Gods in a modern context should come from a mix of personal experience and the old texts.
Going back to my earlier gripe, mythology tells us that Artemis fell in love with Orion. The story of Zeus and Callisto also implies that she had sex with Her hunting companions – or at least Callisto. After working closely with Her for the 2013 Spring Mysteries Festival, I got the distinct impression Artemis isn’t as asexual as She appears – perhaps demi- or grey- sexual/romantic. On the other hand, my personal work with Athena revealed that She is definitely as asexual as She appears. Similarly, my research into the Egyptian Goddess Bast indicates that She had relations with both Gods and Goddesses.
Apollo, Pan and Dionysus all had both male and female lovers. Dionysus, a male deity, is the patron of trans* people.
Pagan Author P. Sufenas Virius Lupus had some insight on why there is often a disconnect between the gender of the deities and those people that worshiped them. E said:
Something really important to remember about all of the deities and heroes mentioned here (and others who aren’t) is that they were rarely if ever valued or worshiped in the past simply because their sexual partners or gender identities matched those of their worshipers.
Despite any suggested diversity, Classical mythology still has some definitive gaps in representation. While there are several deities that either change gender or have a combination of external genetalia, such as Hermaphroditos, Agdistis and Tiresias, they are not trans*.
P. Sufenas Virius Lupus speaks often of eirs experiences with the Tetrad++ Group. These six divine beings – Panpsyche, Panhyle, Paneros, Pancrates, Paneris and Panprodexia – are relatively new, and specifically address the lack of gender-queer deities in classical mythology. E said:
One of the reasons these deities came about… is because there was a need to have deities that fit more closely to our own understandings and situations of gender diversity in the modern world, and were not the results of potential cultural appropriation or misunderstanding of the gender roles and configurations of earlier cultures
These deities – and the many others not mentioned here – can play an important role in people’s lives for a variety of reasons. Their stories are not simply ones that follow the cookie-cutter format most modern entertainment often takes. They are strong, powerful main characters of their own stories. They are deities, heroes and powerful beings and, at the same time, their struggles can be very human. This makes them very relatable. But Lupus added:
It is important to remember that one’s own personal characteristics, identities, interests, or skills don’t have to match up 100%, or even 50%, with a deity one chooses to worship; and furthermore, deities might decide to get involved in one’s life no matter who one is or what one does that correlates to that deity’s attested areas of influence.
Mythology – be it modern or classic – cannot fully stand in place of all representation everywhere. We can and should demand improved representation of LGBTQIA+ within modern entertainment. While the quest for more positive and accurate representation continues, mythology remains a great resource to help those struggling with their own identities and to encourage the celebration of diversity in humanity.
The Wild Hunt is not responsible for links to external content.
To join a conversation on this post:
Visit our The Wild Hunt subreddit! Point your favorite browser to https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Wild_Hunt_News/, then click “JOIN”. Make sure to click the bell, too, to be notified of new articles posted to our subreddit.
Mentioning Loki and Þórr is quite spot on but I would also have talked Óðinn who’s quite the queer God as well.
Otherwise, it’s a rather well made post that focuses on an interesting approach to gender and religion. About the Tetrad groups more specifically, I still do feel like ´making up´ your own Gods is a bit odd but it indeed seems to be a growing trend so it is good that TWH writes about it.
I fail to see the difference between worshipping gods you made up to fill a perceived “gap” in the lore and worshipping a modern folk-hero like Captain America.
I still think there is a difference between fandom and Religion but again I’m not an expert on the question…
The difference is Captain America isn’t a folk hero – he’s a product owned by a corporation. Meaning that his character fundamentally changes depending on editorial dictate and who happens to be writing him this month. I mean, hell, they even brought Bucky back and his loss was a huge part of what made Cap Cap for most of his career. This makes him fundamentally different from a character like Hamlet or Sherlock who possess a definitive, ‘closed’ canon, not to mention a god or spirit who has a distinct and autonomous identity and is in the process of revealing itself to an individual or group. I’m not saying its inappropriate to venerate any of these beings – and even if it was, I have no interest let alone the power to stop anyone from doing so – but if one is going to, they should think seriously about what they’re doing and have respect for categorical differences.
Exactly!
My only disagreement here is the concept of a ‘closed’ canon, at least for those two cases. For that matter, I think many current concepts of ‘canon’ are bad. The idea applied to fiction was a joke by early Holmes fanatics who compared the “Great Game” of reconciling Doyle’s sloppy inconsistencies with interpretation of the Christian Bible. (I often note that advocates of literary canon tend to approach literature in much the same way that exceptionally bad fundamentalists approach the King James Bible.) Doyle was notorious for commercial pandering when it came to Holmes. Reichenbach Falls is more widely regarded as a central part of Holmes lore than the late Secret Agent Holmes.
It’s generally considered that Shakespeare was primarily original in his style and skill at adaptation rather than development of original stories. We have at least two candidates for ur-Hamlets, and dramatists following Shakespeare made their own modification to fit their audiences. Dumas, pere and Thomas changed the ending for 19th century French audiences. Depending on your perspective this is either a travesty, or the justice of leaving Hamlet neck deep in his own bullshit. The Danish Hamlet can comfortably coexist with the African and Canadian ones.
Hamlet is a case where Shakespeare gives us the best version, That’s not the case for works like Romeo and Juliet, where Laurents and Sondheim provide us with a more intimate and painful view of the tragedy across multiple characters.
The concept of a religious canon is also complex for reasons that I don’t really have time to explore. Most living religions acknowledge multiple layers of authority and multiple modes of interpretation.
All well and true – yet surely you recognize a distinction between the character as Doyle wrote him and the Sherlock that appears in the homoerotic fanfic of bored housewives on Tumblr, no?
True. I think works by different authors need to be considered separately and evaluated on their own merits, faults, and genre expectations. I’m not fond of fanfic myself, but derivative works are responsible for three of the iconic trademarks associated with Holmes in popular culture: the hat, the pipe, and “Elementary, dear Watson.” Some derivative stories and adaptations are worthy of independent consideration, most are not.
There’s a VERY big difference–firstly, they aren’t “made up,” as I stated elsewhere in comments here.
Second, as Sannion stated, there’s a difference between venerating a character created by a committee for commercial entertainment purposes (e.g. Captain America), and venerating a being that has been newly recognized within a religious community.
{And, note, if people want to worship pop cultural entities, that’s fine, they’re free to; they aren’t the same as deities, and don’t come about in the same fashion.]
New saints get recognized in Catholicism on a yearly basis, and if you were to say to any Catholic that they’re “made up,” they’d be pretty offended. Deities have always had to make a first appearance somewhere, to someone, and it is happening again now with people like Aine, and in my own community as well.
There are many things that are far more “made up” than this which take place in modern Paganism, including other notions of deities. It would probably be advisable to be a bit more respectful about things you aren’t familiar with.
They’re not “made-up”; they are newly-emergent, certainly, but I didn’t sit down and plan them as one would a fictional character, and their existences were confirmed by independent diviners who knew nothing of what was going on with me and had no information to go on when they were telling me about these beings and describing them exactly as they had appeared to me.
Every deity has a first-emergence at some point, and if polytheism is alive and well now as it has been in the past, new deities can and will be emerging.
I understand that some people, no matter what we say, will view new and/or modern gods as ‘made up’. However, I think it’s incredibly disrespectful to state that they’re made up as if it’s some fact. It just seems like bad manners. (Seriously, my atheist partner is able to show more respect…)
I’ve had absolutely no luck with asking people to please respect my beliefs and my gods, though. I’ll still speak up, but I consider it a lost cause – too many people find it easier to think of new gods as being made up than possibly existing in their own rights.
Well again, I didn’t want to offend, I was just misled because the original article didn’t provide much explanation about P.S.V.L.’s approach. Just so that I got right: is approaching an ´emerging God´ the same thing as doing spirit work somehow?
Not…really. Spirit work encompasses a number of things. I think it’s perfectly possible for people who don’t do spirit work, however, to encounter and approach new or emergent deities. It’s the same as with other deities in some ways.
Some similar things are involved, in that there is direct spirit/deity-interaction with the humans in the communities concerned; divination gets used (a lot!); discernment is exercised in figuring out what is going on; etc.
That is very sad, people should certainly be more respectful.
Though not an adherent of a Deity emergent in my dreamtime, I agree with your logic completely. When Pagans speak of “The Goddess” in that term we reference a recently emergent Deity.
That’s quite an apt point…
Thanks for adding that in! It’s a very valid point, and one that few people in modern Paganism have ever questioned.
Well thanks for the explanations (it wasn’t really clear in the article). I think I understand your approach a little better. i still am a bit confused when it comes to the ´revelation´ parts of the Gods and wouldn’t agree that they must all have ´emerged´ at some point (or maybe it’s just me really disliking ´revealed´ Religions?).
In any cases, I apologize for misunderstanding your views. I have myself never had any supernatural/divine experience of any kinds in my life so I have a hard time understanding the point of view of those who do, but hell, I might one day.
Well, you’d either have to take the monotheist approach that god(s) have existed always, never born, created etc, or you have to believe that they came into existence at some point. Polytheistic mythologies generally go with the second idea in my experience. Just as new deities were appearing all the time in antiquity, why can’t they also do so these days?
Well, I am far from even starting to try to comprehend what the Gods may or may not be so I will have to pass for now…Even though I might tend to think that the concept of Gods as divine ancestor might make sense in a way…
The notion that prevails often, that Paganism isn’t a “revealed religion,” is kind of a misnomer. Yes, there is revelation, direct personal spiritual experience, divinely-inspired insight, and any number of other things involved in the wide array of Pagan religions…including magic, which as a phenomenon is a species of this (i.e. what is “just coincidence” being magic to two different people involves a kind of revelation on the part of one of those people).
But, to be a “revealed religion” in the sense that Christianity and Islam are is entirely different. The revelations Pagans and polytheists get are not on the order of “Oh, and by the way, I’m the Only True and Real God there is, and all others are false and evil,” at least as far as I’ve heard. So, in the sense of “revealed religions” being universal and “one-true” religions?: certainly not.
Some would also put “revealed religions” in the category of “transcendent” religions, in contrast to “immanent” and/or embodies religions, of which Pagan religions are said to be the latter. However, there are definitely aspects of Pagan religions that are transcendent to some degree or another. Just because someone draws down The Goddess doesn’t mean that’s not a transcendent experience to some extent, not only for the one into whom The Goddess is drawn down, but also for those interacting with that person, etc.
Well I for one have no problem with “made up” divinities. Myrddin and Morgen (or Merlin and Morgan le Fay) are literary figures that have quite the following in the pagan world.
Exactly…and, someone, somewhere, had to be the first to put pen to parchment and give them their first appearance. Other than it being non-literary in nature, every deity also had that occur at some stage, when one of their sacred functionaries first said their name aloud in prayer and/or to other potential worshippers.
This reminds me of the concept of ´Immanent Sagas´ in Old Norse-Icelandic Literature: basically, this approach diminishes the status of the so-called ´author´ of a literary work and focuses rather on a progressive, ever-evolving tale that gets reworked and adapted numerous times over an extended period of time to the point where the very concept of solitary authorship disappears. If we consider that all those tales written down in the medieval ages are actually remnants of older Pagan tales, this approach makes sense.
Oral Torah, anyone?
If you have not read “Blossom of Bone”, “Queering Creole Traditions”, Ashushanamir story in the Epic of Gilgamesh, you are completely missing major information about Gay and Lesbian celebrations and their relationship to the Ancient gods. Ashushanamir’s children are the ereshkagil, Ereshkaga and Ereshkagul – Men who are lovers of men, women who are lovers of women, Those that are both man and woman. Ashushanamir is “He and She who shimmers brightly” and Her creation is the story of the first Person who is born to embody both female and male. However, these cultures also did not create a seperate group for Gay and Lesbian people, instead they were incorporated into the whole of the functions of the society.
No luck finding any reference, aside from your comment elsewhere, on the Ashushanamir story in the Epic of Gilgamesh, nor ereshkagil, Ereshkaga and Ereshkagul. I’d appreciate a URL or the like.
I’m with a dance troupe called House of Inanna (the senior troupe will perform at PCon). When we were preparing to portray part of the story of the Descent of Inanna, I was to portray Ereshkigal. I tried to find information on her online, but mostly I found things that were also attributed to her sister Inanna–symbols, images, that sort of thing. Mostly, she gets left out. Between that, and being forbidden to leave the Underworld, while Inanna goes all over the place and does some things we’d say were not all that nice, Inanna comes off smelling of roses, and everyone adores her, but Ereshkigal is given short shrift: disdained or ignored, when she’s not subsumed into Inanna’s identity.
I began to understand why E would humiliate and kill I. I felt rather sad for E. I find I get a little annoyed at my troupe leader when she’s lauding Inanna and ignoring Ereshkigal. I have Queen of the Great Below, but have yet to read it. If anyone should have an idea of any days dedicated to Ereshkigal, I’d love to hear it. saffron rose funsign me com.
Interesting article and fascinating discussion. Thank you.