Folklore - Women better at magic than men?

>>54845484
He has no point, most major magicians were men. If you wanted a thematic [if not necessarily historic] division of magic along sexual lines, there is always the idea that there are certain female genetic lines where a kind of natural magic passes from mother to daughter [witches] whereas academic magic is open to both sexes but is overwhelmingly male.

>>54845484
Unless you're gonna make men better at nonmagical stuff, then it's SJW shit. And even then if the system is 3.x it's ALWAYS SJW shit

>>54845484
This seems like the sort of thing that would vary enormously depending on the culture and time period involved, to the point of not having a generic answer.

Did your friend provide any examples more concrete than "mythology and folklore"?

Did your own research touch upon something more specific than "matters of the occult"?

>>54845484
>>54845514
>>54845548
Wheel of Time.

That is all.

>>54845484
I don't recall hearing any mythology or legends that say women are better at magic than men, just that women can use different kinds of magic than men.

>>54845575
Wicca. Which is fake mythology that was made in the 20th century. That's about all that I can think of, and likely all that OP's friend thought of

>>54845484
Do a test. Ask him what men would be better at then. If he says nothing, then don't follow his ideas since it's SJW nonsense. If he says anything, stop lying to yourself since there's no way anyone who'd suggest something like this would be okay with that, unless the thing guys are better at is an objectively worse option without any gender biases

>>54845613
I've heard Norse mythology associates magic with women in some ways, but that's not really consistent with things like Odin being a wizard

in Norse mythology magic was a woman's job and it was seen as unmanly for men to partake, but women weren't "better" at magic than the men who practiced it

>>54845679
It's inconsistent as all hell. And I'm pretty sure it's ONLY divination. The point is, there's no real reason for someone to suggest this kinda thing, and there's also a reason that most major systems ditched gender biases a while ago, though they'll probably come back in a bad way...

File: 149865533323.png (493KB, 500x731px) Image search: [Google]

493KB, 500x731px

>>54845484
>does he have a point?
Does he ever.

>>54845679
It's consistent, Odin is mocked by Loki for using magic because it's unmanly. That doesn't mean women were better at it, but it was associated with them.

>>54845848
So it's the same as a girl going into combat as a warrior then.
Also, loki was a twat so who cares what he says

>>54845562
Men were stronger in the Wheel of Time though. Much stronger. For women to have a chance against a man they have to link with another woman if not more than 1 other.

>>54845484
>A friend of mine suggested making women superior at magic compared to men based on mythology and folklore, but would this be accurate?
It would not. Practically all of the big wizard types of mythology, hermeticism and folklore are men; the women are typically just witches, i.e. women who get ebul magical powers by sucking them out of Satan's dick. You'll notice that even in that case the guy with the actual magic power is a guy.

Circe and Medea are *kind of* exceptions to this in that Satan wasn't invented yet, but fundamentally they aren't.

This guy >>54845613 has the right of it in that your friend's ideas come from wicca, which is makebelieve religion invented after WWII.

>>54845905
For some reason people keep forgetting or ignoring this about WoT, that the only reason magic is woman-dominated is that the male half of magic is literally contaminated to make any guy who tries insane. Once they fix that little problem the men BTFO the women even harder at magic than at anything else. Robert Jordan didn't really have a high opinion of women but he was 100% right.

>>54845484
No, he has no point. Women being better at magic is a recent affectation of the Wiccan and New Age Tumblr Occultists.

>>54845562
Bad example. Men were better/stronger in magic in Wheel of Time. Women just maintained a monopoly on magic in the beginning because they feared powerful male magic users. Wheel of time is a literal example of a genderflipped 'patriarchy' that Feminists pretend exists.

In my setting, women are more profficient in magical arts than men because they have more nerves or some shit. Magic is cast through electric waves you send through your body into an instrument or directly into the environment and women are genetically set to be better when it comes to precise work. Men on the other hand have bigger brains, which means their magic is 10% more powerful on average. To illustrate this with telekinesia: men are better on average at throwing boulders (although the sheer amount of magical energy required hurts their skin and flesh as if it was electrocuted if they do too far), female casters are better at healing because it's about precision, synchronisation, harmony, balance; like a surgeon. Telepathy/illusion: men are on average better at launching mental assaults, women are generally best fitten if you want to read someone's mind without them noticing.
Predisposition doesn't exclude men from besting women in their domain, nor the opposite. It's just a predisposition. of course, such exceptions are as rare as Ronda Rouseys and Briennes of Tarth.

>>54845995
>Women being better at magic is a recent affectation of the Wiccan and New Age Tumblr Occultists.

Except as OP noted there's mythology to back it up

>>54845848
Loki isn't the only one who calls Odin a faggot for doing girly magic. IIRC there is a kind of magic that men do, but Odin specifically practices girly magic because he cares more about ULTIMATE POWER than following social norms. That's kind of his thing. He's an oathbreaker.

File: wtf odin.jpg (54KB, 572x199px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 572x199px

>>54846240
No, I think Odin was just a plain old faggot.

>>54846240
Reminder that Thor dressed up as a woman to infiltrate a Jotunheim party; the original trap

The norse gods were some cheeky fucks

>>54846214
>makes claim contradicting everyone ITT who seem to know what they're talking about
>provides no proof or even example

>>54846419
Better than being incestuous douchebags like them Greek gods

>>54845484
I thinl Norse and Greek are the only cases where it was seen as particularly girly.

>>54845484
An idea I'd gone with is that all creatures pull of of whatever mana/available magic source they can harness. Mostly this takes the forms of magical objects of power, a kicker being that pregnant women can siphon off their unborn children's magical potential. Usually this leads to magically 'sterile' offspring, but means even mediocre female mages can perform higher level magic without outside magical help.

>>54846877
They'd probably be rightly branded as "Unsavoury folk" for several extremely good reasons though

>>54845995
well, that and male magic users had a nasty tendency to go batshit insane in WoT.

>>54846419
He needed all of loki's trickery to pull it off.
Thor is no Enkidu.

>>54846419
>Thor crossdresses with his brother's help
>Convincingly passes as the most beautiful goddess Asgard
>Slaughters an entire hall full of giants while still in drag

Norse mythology is the best.

Yes. In Yakutia women-shamans are stronger then males. Low tier "udagansha" are close in power level to mid-tier male shaman.
But then, every shaman-tungus (Northen tribe) are close to saiyan, far stronger then every women, and even capable to maintain pacts with multiple spirit-companions.

I pity you, silly westerner, who can't read this original DBZ-tier magic lore.

>Women are more likely to be born with magic (sorcerers)
>Men pick up academic magic easier (wizards)
ez

>>54848060
Wizards are more powerful than Sorcerers

So I guess men really are better with magic

>>54845484
I have no idea why he would say something so inane, the folklore absolutely clear on that- women are barely good enough for soft, natural magic, hardcore magic is exclusively male.

>>54845484
Historically, all of the greatest magic users in the western tradition were men. Merlin, King Solomon, Hermes Trismegistus, etc. All men.

But women had easier access to low-tier magic by fucking the Devil in exchange for power.

>>54848817
You'd think that it'd be easier for men to get magic by shagging the devil too

>>54848844
That would imply the Devil is a homo.

>>54849006
Well you do get sent to hell for that

>>54848817
>Implying king Solomon didn't learn magic from the Queen of Shiba
>Mentioning Merlin but not Morgan le Fay
>Ignoring all the sorceresses, goddesses of wisdom, and oracles in Greek and Egyptian mythology.
>Ignoring that witches were the only magic users for large chunks of history.

I think you might just be biased.

>>54849243
Here comes Tumblr

>>54846419
Loki turned into a female horse and got fucked by a male horse then gave birth to the magic horse that ended up being Odin's steed. Shit's kinda wacky.

>>54849243
>Implying king Solomon didn't learn magic from the Queen of Shiba
Solomon outstripped everything she ever did. He also garnered the bulk of his magic from God and bound Demons.
>Mentioning Merlin but not Morgan le Fay
You mean the sorceress he tutored who was evidently his inferior?
>Ignoring all the sorcerers, gods of wisdom, and prophets in Greek and Egyptian mythology
FTFY
>Ignoring that witches were the only magic users for large chunks of history
Pre-Middle Ages men were accused more so of witchcraft than women. History is a thing.

Not overlooking the present women in folklore and mythology, but you're acting out of a bit.

>>54849024
Yeah, and the Devil sets them on fire and pokes them with his pitchfork forever because he hates fags and is sick of Jesus sending them to his realm.

>>54845556
>This seems like the sort of thing that would vary enormously depending on the culture and time period involved
This

It was different in various times and cultures. A woman's womb was seen as mystical yes, but so was semen.

>>54846344
This. Odins magic required him to drink semen. This is why Seidr was a womans art.

>>54846877
Hello, police? I'd like to report a faggot jamming his fucking magic realm into everything

>>54849243
1. Solomon and Merlin both were greater than their female peers.
2. The god of magic in Egyptian myth was Thoth, a dude.
3. There was never a time when women were the 'only magic users' in history.

I think you might just be a biased whore from tumblr

>>54849250
Beat me to it

File: Odin.jpg (97KB, 500x733px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 500x733px

>>54849422
And yet he, man(god), was the most powerful practitioner of a supposedly womanly art.

Tolkien's inspiration for Gandalf, indeed.

>>54849508
>was the most powerful practitioner of a supposedly womanly art.
Well, yes, because he was a God and the chief God at that. He and all the other Gods also relied utterly on Idun and her apples.

It's almost as if, like, both genders were somehow fucking relevant, and there wasn't this huge cultural gender war. Or something.

>>54849570
>Well, yes, because he was a God and the chief God at that

Not him, but he wasn't the only god proficient in Seidr.

>>54849570
Ok, white knight.

>>54845562
Wheel of Time operates on gender dimorphism.

Some women might be stronger than men, but mostly it goes the other way. Women tend to be more deft with their weaving and able to weave more things at once, but that's about it. They're only "in charge" of magic at the time of the series because the male half is tainted so men go mad after a while, and even then that lasts up until maybe halfway through the series at the most.

>>54845484
They're consistently shitty at it throughout all mythology.

>>54846240
Norse men who used the girly type couldn't insist on duels to the death in response to being called a faggot
and they were sometimes easier to justify lynching, but they were allowed to learn it. And many did.

Also, Odin used both types.

>>54849754
Women were considered more 'stable', even before Saidin got corrupted, and Women could link their powers together and become stronger than any individual male. The absolutely most powerful circle was a chain of women linked to a male, combining the strengths of both halves of the Source.

File: 0hQyd5L.gif (489KB, 420x315px) Image search: [Google]

489KB, 420x315px

oh cool a thread that somehow hasn't been 100% hijacked by shut-in winglets, please do go on

Gee, if history is anything to go by, magic, if it existed, would be heavily male dominated.

But magic doesn't exist. So there you go.

>>54849887
The biggest circle is sixty-six women and six men, though. And a man also to lead said maxed-out circle. Men also have to lead a two-person circle between a man and woman, too. There's a lot of specifics on who can lead circles of what size and composition in general.

File: crowley.jpg (40KB, 317x378px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 317x378px

>>54849927
>magic doesn't exist
>mfw

>>54849987
Aleister Crowley was a king troll who was misunderstood

>>54849570
>both genders were somehow fucking relevant

Yup. Gender wars are not a thing with any relevant cultural weight in the olden days.

Also, it's fantasy, do what the fuck you want.

>>54849769
All mythology? I don't agree, but greek mythology for sure

From what I remember, weren't the victims of witch hunts like 60% male or something like that?

it's just that the witch hunt that resonates most with the American conciousness is Salem, which had more female victims.

So no, I doubt women were better magicians in most folklore.

File: black mage.jpg (165KB, 540x810px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 540x810px

>>54845484
There are some cultures where women are more likely to be associated with magic, but there are probably equally as many where magic is only for men.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galdr
Old Norse Singing magic. Mostly practiced by women because spells are sung with high voices. Odin mastered multiple protection chants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larzac_tablet
A curse tablet of Gaulish origin. One group of female spellcasters used it to curse another group of women (some of which are related).
I also have a book of dragon mythology that I can't seem to find online, but there is a specific section for myths about sorceresses and dragons.
Pretty much any major goddess in world mythology would be accompanied by a female-cult.
Since all magic IRL is fake and we actually know very little on the secret societies that no longer exist and given the fact that women are still being killed for witchcraft, I think a setting with a Goddess who only shares her magic with women would be a refreshing change of pace.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchcraft

>>54849887
No, the absolutely most powerful circle was a shepherd, his old babysitter, and a couple of barbie dolls.

>>54850083
Most of them were already related to women who had been tried and found guilty.

File: tenor.gif (255KB, 220x143px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 220x143px

>walk in expecting thought-provoking discussion about gender roles in historical religion and folklore
>"women existing triggers me to call everyone SJW"
>really need to stop expecting things

>>54851639
I don't see any of that. Are you sure you're not just triggered over a hair's worth of ramblings?

>>54845484

For what it's worth, in China, magic is a male tradition.

>>54851639
It could easily be worse, and the term SJW only get thrown around like twice, so it's a hair above what I've come to expect from even vaguely political discussion.

>>54845484
>>54845484
>A friend of mine suggested making women superior at magic compared to men based on mythology and folklore, but would this be accurate?

No not really. He's probably going off the pop culture idea of "witches". But in most mythologies they were just likely if not more so to be men as women.

Of course you can still do it if you wanted. It could be a interesting detail. But I think maybe just restrict centain schools of magic works better. The Differences between wizards (all male Academic types) and witches (all female Salt of the earth types) comes up in Discworld. Hell even dark elfs in Dnd have a similar thing going on. Drow wizards are male. Drow celrics are female.

But all being the men being the tough fighter types, while the all the women are the delicate mystic types is already pretty cliche OP.

You are kinda getting this thing completely wrong on many levels.

Women and femininity are generally more associated the principle of chaos, while masculinity is associated with order. And when there is order, there is hierarchy. So if you are going to look into heirarchical orders (like priesthood, nobility - which has been associated with magical practices, I mean kings fucking priests too - etc...) of course you are going to find it male-dominated. That is what males do: arrange themselves into orders, from the meanest motherfucker to the lowest one. Magic in hands of males is generally in a form of an order - as in medieval societies with alchemies, transmutations, thick books on hermeneutics.

Women, on the other hand, are generally seen having their finger on the chaos itself. You'll rarely find them in hierarchies, and if then it's going to be a female-only one because despite what you are taught to think about, women and men did not actually compete for the same spots in history.
Instead, you'll find them as being objects of intuition (vast majority of oracles in most societies were females), vitality and healing (midwifes), and witchcraft (which is again something always practiced outside of hierarchies, outside of order).

I'd safely say that historically, more women were deemed to be practicioners of magic than men. Comparing their "powerlevels", however, just generally completely silly. First of all most of mythology and folklore does not give a shit about such juvenille ideas, second of all, you are comparing masculine hierarchies with feminine lack of there-off.

>>54852021
>But in most mythologies they were just likely if not more so to be men as women.
That is just really fucking wrong.

>>54846344
definitely ergi, but not nith, at least

>>54849987
another guy who took it in the ass

a lot

>>54852141
No, he's not wrong. If we're talking Europe, yeah. The world in its entirety? Male prominence.

>>54845484

A good example of women being better at magic is in 1001 nights, magic appears really commonly in the form of sprinkling water on something/someone and saying certain words but it is exclusively used by women and djinns.

The men just pray to allah to protect them.

>>54852199
Absolutely not. Always female. For every one priest there are three midwifes and wise old women.
It's actually really simple. Go around China or Japan or India and see who is more prone to magical rituals: males or females?
And BAM, you got your answer. Magical practices were always in majority associated with women. Especially magic related to basic daily rituals and acts. That is true for Middle East, India, Japan, China, Europe, and even fucking Southern Americas.

File: Cult.jpg (39KB, 500x633px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 500x633px

Women were more often than not associated with petty malevolent magics.
Men were predominantly associated with stronger benevolent magics.

At least in Europe.

Though, this only goes for myth and folklore.
Occult societies were (as OP noted) dominated by men, not women.

Take it for what you will.

>>54852236
I'd actually argue that the East is more male pronounced.

File: here it comes.jpg (95KB, 1189x960px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 1189x960px

>>54852236
Here comes the stereotypical Tumblrina

Also I just remembered in Greece there were the Sibyls, exclusively female oracles.

File: 1435695785432.gif (342KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 400x400px

>>54845484
For many folklore/mythologies, this would be accurate.

For many folklore/mythologies, this would not be accurate accurate.


Whether or not it is sjw/mra/etc... is irrelevant: base your decision off of the themes you want in your game and the set(s) of folklore you wish to use. Being sjw/mra crap comes from making decisions based off of concern for sjw/mra crap. If you base your decisions off of actual folklore and good storytelling, just whip your historical/mythological/literary dick on them and move on.

The SJW and MRA only win if you give into their bullshit and play their game.... so don't, play your game, you're the DM after all.

>>54845514
Circe. Medea. Baba Yaga. Morgana.

80% of the witches in Australian and African folklore are women. EVERY historical deity of magic is female.

So, no, you are categorically wrong.

>>54852236
>For every one priest there are three midwifes and wise old women.

Maybe but for the most part they were just seen as that. Midwifes and wise old women.

Contrary to what media says simply being a medicine woman didn't mean people thought you a witch.

Maybe you know more then most but what's the cut-off point there? Should been a shrine maid be considered "magic user"? A nun? rabbi? A morris dancer?

>>54852348
>EVERY historical deity of magic is female.

It's about even, actually.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Magic_deities

>>54852236
>Citations are for people with proof

>>54845484
Depends on the mythology and folklore

>>54852348
>EVERY historical deity of magic is female.
The most prominent gods of magic in European myth are predominantly male figures.

Odin
Enki
Thoth
Hermes
Trismegistus
Heka
Gwydion
Etc...

Hecate is the only goddess that really stands out.

>>54852383
>Hecate is the only goddess that really stands out.

There's arguably Isis, though she's under Thoth in influence.

>>54852368
>deity of magic is female.

Wait isn't having magical powers sort of a given if you are God? Seems a bit odd to have actual gods of magic in the same way you would have gods of war or gods of Commerse.

>>54852261
>I'd actually argue that the East is more male pronounced.
Actually, what kind of bullshit is this shit? Do you kids not realize than in Christian fucking environments, only OFFICIAL admited magic is male-controlled?
Are you fucks so god-damn clueless you don't realize that in Catholic church, every priest (and every king) is actually a magic practiocioner?!
If anything, Europe has unusually high focus on male-dominated magic because it was the only legally acceptable form for fuck sake.
God damn you people are clueless.

>>54852272
Stop saying words you clearly do not know how to use, fucker.

>>54852363
> Maybe but for the most part they were just seen as that. Midwifes and wise old women.
Which are actions and posts inherently connected to magical practices you retard... who the fuck are you? Have you EVER ACTUALLY OPENED A FUCKING BOOK ON MAGIC AND AN ANTHROPOLOGICAL SUBJECT OF STUDY?!

>Contrary to what media says simply being a medicine woman didn't mean people thought you a witch.
That is actually literally what it means. What wasn't true is that assuming someone a witch was always viewed as bad thing.

>Should been a shrine maid be considered "magic user"?
YES YOU MONGOLOID! OF COURSE THEY FUCKING WERE! WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU RETARDS THINK MAGIC IS?!

>>54852370
I see you mongoloids bubbling and foaming at mouth with your citations, so why should I fucking bother with you dipshits.

>>54852348
You know the interesting thing is a good bulk of female magic users are evil, or came to be viewed as evil at some point, as if the idea of female magic users was frowned upon or something...

>>54852420

Oh shit. We got a screecher.

>>54852324
Best answer. Your game, your call, just make sure you're able to show your work.

>>54852324
The only good post in this garbage thread.
Well done, anon.

Remember OP,
Your imagination and fantasy >>>>>>>>>> Other fags imagination and fantasy.

>>54852460
On that note, the sperg wave has come like I guessed, so I shall retreat into the bunker for the moment.

>>54845484
>matters of the occult
Anon, occultism is not what magic used to be. And in folklore magic power of women is essentially tied to their ability to give life.

This thread is hilarious

>>54852490
With the added benefit of potentially useful starting points for actual study.

I'm new and eager to learn shit, I'll take what I can get.

>>54852483
>occultism is not what magic used to be

I'm not sure you know of what you speak

>>54852505
Elaborate

>>54852507
Occultism and magic go hand and hand.

>>54852519
And remind me how old occultism is?

Well it is a witch hunt, not a wizard hunt...

>>54852420
>Every Christian priest used magic
Only monks worked miracles, and extremely holy ones.

>>54852507
>Occultism is the study of occult or hidden wisdom (to the occultist, it is the study of "Truth", a deeper truth that exists beneath the surface). It can involve such subjects as magic, astrology, spiritualism, extra-sensory perception and numerology.

The precise definition varies but magic is tied to it often enough that it's hard to ignore. The idea of it is pretty damn old, it's the revival of said ideas that's more recent in comparison.

>>54845484
Some cultures ascribed magical power to semen, and since men emptied their supply of semen when they slept around they also lost their magical potential. Women, on the other hand, gained magical power from sleeping around with men.

This is also why Odin is stated to constantly suck dick.

>>54852542
>it's the revival of said ideas that's more recent in comparison
And that's what important considering changes in culture, religion and knowledge about the universe

>>54852538
>Only monks worked miracles, and extremely holy ones.
Are you... actually mentally retarded? As in: do you have a fucking medical confirmation of a cognitive disfunction?
If not, what in fucking EARTH makes you compelled to talk about shit you clearly do not fucking know a single fucking thing about?

Ever heard of transmutation?!
No. Every catholic priest preforms a magical ritual of transmutation during every single mass. That is at least once a fucking week. Monks, on the other hand, have NO ACTUAL CAPACITY to perform miracles unless they are actually saints - in which case it's not them preforming miracles, it's God who does it.

>>54852542
Dude, the other guy is right and you are wrong: Occultism is a fascination with magical rituals specifically in the context of Western Romantic movement and onwards, when it was established as parallel or alternative form of studies to empiric and scientific inquiry. It's a very specific, very modern and very wester-culture-centric view on mysticism and paranormal, and mostly, it completely misses the actual nature of magic as an institution through out history and multiple cultures.

>>54852571
Maybe in OPs setting women should be able to to low to middle intensity magic over long periods of time while men can pull of high intensity magic over short periods of time, like the difference between a sprint and a marathon each would then have it's place.

>>54852571
>Women, on the other hand, gained magical power from sleeping around

Semen doesn't stay in the vagina, Anon. It seeps out.
If anything, swallowing it is more pragmatic.

>>54846240
>He's an oathbreaker.
No, Tyr is the oathbreaker, which is why Odin took his place as the head of the pantheon.

>>54852593
>transmutation
Transubstantiation, actually.

>>54845484
People fered magic, so they asociated them with something they don't know that is vile and twisted as magic itself. That is why there was more of a rustle about witches and female mythical beings

.>>54845562
What this anon said.

>>54852577
And OP should be able to account for that in using historical occurrences of occultism for the development of his setting.

>>54852626
OK, fair enough, my brain completely betrayed me on that. Transubstantiation. Never the less, it's an explicitly magic act.

File: Sir Isaac Newton.jpg (413KB, 780x1074px) Image search: [Google]

413KB, 780x1074px

>>54852593
Occultism corresponds to arcane matters around the world, anon. There's blatant subjects on East Asian occultism.
It's not exclusively Western, unless you're referring specifically to Western Esotericism.

You're right about priests, though they don't refer to their work as 'magic'
Magic and religion go hand in hand, only in the West was there a major split.

Hermeticism, arguably the most rigid of occult practices, was heavily religious.
Even Newton was entrusting in the Hermetic arts, being a pious individual himself.

>>54845484
I'm more interested in your Anon's setting that in what did he base it (being fictional, traditional or madeup). How does magic work there? how does non magic users compete? what role do have these sorceresses or fem wizards have in society?

>>54852641
This

Magic was always a religious endeavor throughout history. The Catholic Church is innately ironic at times.

>>54852602
And men's supply of semen is constantly replenished. Your point is?

>>54852641
>Occultism corresponds to arcane matters around the world, anon.
No, occultism is a invention of a bunch of really bored kids in 19th century, sick of being stuck between the dull mechanistic Enlightenism and humorless post-reformation Christianity, that started to look for (and largely invent) romantic fascination with mysticism and paranormal. There is no such thing as "Asian Occultism": Enthusiasts in occult were fascinated by Asian mysticism among many other things, but that does not mean that their interpretations and understanding of "occult" were in any way actually accurately representing the magical practices and mindset of Asia.

The very use of the idea of "arcane" alone just betrays how incredibly narrow-minded the very perspective was to begin with.
And that is fine, by the way. I have nothing against classical occultism (neo-occultist movements like Wicca can go suck a thousand cocks, of course).

Just don't pretend that occultism is the study of magical practices, or that it is some kind of unbiased and universal phenomenon. Occultism is a funny product of very particular and very frustrating philosphical pressures of certain eras: it's a one (extremely narrow) way of studying mythological and magical practices.

>Magic and religion go hand in hand, only in the West was there a major split.
Not really, considering the above. The only split was there later with religious reformation. As for priests not calling Transubstantiation "magic", well, catholic priests avoid that word, but the protestants sure as fuck don't, it's one of their favorite ways to riddicule catholics.

>Hermeticism, arguably the most rigid of occult practices, was heavily religious.
Hermeticism is the most misused word on the fucking universe. Partially because of precisely the bias and completely crazy nature of occultism that romanticized the FUCK of all magical practices through out the history completely out of proportion.

>>54845701
That shit is weird to me, seeing how the royalty in Scandinavian cultures had a priest/shaman/mage whatever role alongside being king.

>>54852723
Holy shit, you really don't know what you're spewing.

You don't just disregard definitions.

>>54852723
This is an interesting and well-explained perspective. I approve.

>>54852723
So your beliefs go against what we already know and define? Ok.

You can belief what you wish, anon. Just know that your definition of such things does not align with the masses.

Definitions have context, and their reply provides a decent enough amount of it even if I don't necessarily agree with all of their points.

>>54852734
believe* rather

>>54852729
Occult enthusiasts don't really approach the norm. He's not wrong or right on this. Interesting viewpoint, nonetheless.

>>54852723
Sadly, from your previous posts with the ridiculous usage of capital letters, I just can't take you seriously.

You don't sound very professional, especially when you're either with or against the countless occult writers of the past two centuries. Which you are.

>>54852729
>>54852734
Are you fucking kidding me?
To call everything pertaining magical practices "the occult", is like to call everything pertaining religiosity and spirituality "The New Age". Because that is what occultism was: the new age of 19th century.
Jesus kids: I've fucking studied magical practices and rituals as part of my JOB. And trust me, I'd get fucking slapped if as an anthropologists, I'd claim that I was studying "the occult practices in rural Ukraine or Western Tohoku."
It's a fucking joke. The idea of "occult" (a fucking latin word literally meaning "the hidden, which itself should fucking tell you how stupid this is because MOST magical practices and beliefs accros the world don't fucking hide anything - "hiding" magic was fucking western, religion-fearing notion) is FIRMLY AND COMPLETELY ingrained in western philosophy of 19th and early 20th century. It's how people of SPECIFIC cultural and philosophical beliefs viewed supernatural and paranormal.

Contemporary studies of magical practices don't call their subject of studies "occult". Pre-19th century did not call it "occult".
So fuck off.

>>54852723
>No, occultism is a invention of a bunch of really bored kids in 19th century
It's really not. It's a definition. You might as well label psychology as a fan invention of its precursor.

>There is no such thing as "Asian Occultism":
Except there is. It refers to East Asian mysticism and beliefs.

>Enthusiasts in occult were fascinated by Asian mysticism among many other things, but that does not mean that their interpretations and understanding of "occult" were in any way actually accurately representing the magical practices and mindset of Asia.
You seem to be taking the 'occult' as some sort of system. It's not.

>The very use of the idea of "arcane" alone just betrays how incredibly narrow-minded the very perspective was to begin with.
Ok, now you're starting to sound pretentious. It's a word. A word that means hidden/secret.

>Just don't pretend that occultism is the study of magical practices
Except it is.

>everything else
This is an area where your personal beliefs conflict with the majority.

Overall, I don't think you're grasping the definition of a certain definition. This is really funny to me.

We should all just ignore the /x/ dumbass

Idiots interesting in the occult can never agree with each other.

>>54852783
You realize that your idea of 'magic' is just one of thousands right? Stop speaking as if you know, word for word, what it is.

All of this isn't even real to begin with.

>>54852783
>Jesus kids: I've fucking studied magical practices and rituals as part of my JOB

You're fucking priceless, matey. You're probably some fat sixteen year old goth kid.

>>54852783
>Pre-19th century did not call it "occult".

Neither did they call all of our modern definitions by what we call them, yet they were still the same. You're taking a definition way too far, friend.

Go for it, just know that you're in the pond here.

File: psssshhhhhhttt.jpg (32KB, 408x493px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 408x493px

>>54852783

Magic doesn't exist

>>54852852
Like I said, the idea existed before the term codified it. Much as I found parts of their points noteworthy, I'm faintly annoyed by how the concept seems to effortlessly throw people.

I foresee another massive text wall of screeching autism

>>54852868
It's just his way of looking at it, I suppose. Rarely do people see eye to eye on subjects such as these. /x/ is even worse

>>54852808
>It's really not. It's a definition.
It's really not you retard. Even google fucking definition defines occult as studies in invisible, and in magical practices in relation to secret societies and agencies.
Dude, I fucking study magical practices for living.

>You might as well label psychology as a fan invention of its precursor.
This sentence literally does not make sense, but I define occult EXACTLY the same way as modern use defines psychology: as a NARROW, SPECIFIC interpretation of human personality and cognition, defined by a specific, narrow cultural and philosophical context of secularism of 20th century.
You can't claim that Vedanta's are psychological studies even thought they very thoroughly interpret the same subject matter: they do it through a completely different cultural and philosophical framework.

Occultism is a one way to look at magic. Psychology is one way to look at cognition. Psychology is NOT ALL STUDIES OF COGNITION, and occultism is not all studies of magic. It's that simple.

>It refers to East Asian mysticism and beliefs.
No, it refers to western interpretation interest in east asian mysticism and beliefs. Fun question: how is Asian Shintoistic magical ritual "hidden" again, when it's something that Tokyo University Technical Faculty performs every year to bless their students projects?!

>A word that means hidden/secret.
Again: majority of magical practices through out history were neither hidden nor secret. It's not just a word: it's a TERM that refers to certain IDEA. And that idea is extremely western-specific. Because again: magic being something HIDDEN is largely a specific western notion.

>Except it is.
Even online fucking dictionaries don't agree. Much less actual fucking academia studying the subject matter you retard.

>This is an area where your personal beliefs conflict with the majority.
No, that is what my education and professional experience dictated by educated majority actually says you mongoloid.

Damn, lot of anxious MRAs in this thread.

> Buh... buh... women aren't allowed to be powerful even in fiction. IT MAKES ME UNCOMFORTABLE REEEEE!

I am sorry you're hurting so bad anons.

>>54852724
The concept of a king seems to have, in PIE cultures at least, originated as a high-priest. Though kings in many other cultures seem to have had similar purposes, so it's possible that the religious duties of the tribe leader go back much further than that.

>>54852870
Holy shit, you knew. You must be some sort of oracle.

>>54852885
>"you're wrong"
>"no u"
>"idiot"
>"my definitions are the right ones"
>"nope, they're not"
>"no u"

Grow up

>>54852829
>You realize that your idea of 'magic' is just one of thousands right?
Is this a joke? Please tell me you retards are just messing with me? You have no fucking excuse to be this stupid.
I can assure you, you mongoloids, I'm the only one in this fucking thread who has experience with the subject matter of magic across multiple cultural framerworks. Fuck me: I'M THE ONE SAYING THAT THE IDEA OF MAGIC THAT YOU HAVE IS ONLY ONE OF MANY.
YOU RETARDS ARE CLAIMING THAT ONLY THE WESTERN MYSTICSM OCCULTISM VIEW OF MAGIC IS THE UNIVERSAL ONE FOR FUCK SAKE.

>>54852840
What ever helps you sleep, kid. Because it's not like there is an entire academic field that does this routinely. Seriously: there is nothing actually weird or strange about studying magical practices - it's one of the three most importaint domains of studies of cultural anthropology.

>>54852852
>Neither did they call all of our modern definitions by what we call them
The thing you are talking about is called "magic". Not occult. MAGIC. Occult is defined as hidden. The fact that somewhere along the line, a specific view and interest in specific forms of magic does not retroactively change all magical practices to the ones the specific western movement was interested in.

>>54852861
You are very wrong on that. You just don't have a clue what magic is.

File: 1502320127011.jpg (30KB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 450x450px

>>54852895
>expecting reasoned intelligent debate on /tg/
>expecting reasoned intelligent debate on 4chan
>expecting reasoned intelligent debate on the internet

Gotta say, this thread did actually exceed expectations for a good bit.

>>54852895
If you can't argue for shit, don't participate in discussions on-line. Otherwise you just publicly humiliate yourself.

>>54852915
>Otherwise you just publicly humiliate yourself.

There's some good irony here

>>54852808
>It's really not
It really is

Magic is often grouped into the occult.

The occult is a definition for what is hidden, and can mean literally anything. Be it Rosicrucianism or the Onmyodo of Japan.

Not sure why this discussion is still progressing.

>>54845484
depends on the culture.
Like, among the norse, magic was considered a womanly thing. so any man practicing it was unmanly and probably a homo. in their point of view.

>>54852905
You'd be taken a bit more seriously if you stopped using capital letters.

>>54852952
>conflicting views
>instant REEEEEEB8

>>54852919
Says the person whose entire argument is "it's the definition!" which A) it isn't, literally just check multiple dictionaries and B) dictionaries are not prescriptive, and have no academic value. Just check the definition of the word "arbitrary" and then it's clarification if Saussure's Course in General Linguistics and you'll know what I mean.

I've made a numerous points. Adressing everything you have claimed, refering to more broad historical and cultural context and pointing out clear examples, and authority of a field you can go and check with yourself, if you are interested.
You can start by reading Fraser, Greenwood, Brown, Cunningham, fucking Evans-Pritchards, or the Wax'es.
Here:
http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199766567/obo-9780199766567-0051.xml
A good bibliography to start with.

The fact that you ignore my points, despite them being detailed, and literally say "no u" without you know is fucking pathetic.

File: IMG_1261.jpg (29KB, 337x253px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 337x253px

>>54845484
The "women are better at magic than men" meme has no basis in history

>>54852952
>>54852962

It's just one retard that won't shut up about his precious belief system(s)

>>54852952
Occult is a specific interest in specific types of magic produced by specific era and philosophy, that is the damn point.
I'm also unsure why these fucking mongoloids continue arguing about this.

>>54852969
>The fact that you ignore my points

It's not the fact that they're ignoring your points more so that there is no single unifying defining system for what you're discussing.

It's all fruitless regardless, as magic is non-existent.

>>54852975
>Occult is a specific interest in specific types of magic produced by specific era and philosophy

More so the study of the paranormal as a whole.

>>54852984
>as magic is non-existent
You can argue that gods don't exist but it doesn't make studying religious practices and culture fruitless somehow. I'm not a fedora tipper

>>54853009
This. Belief systems have inherent values as indicators of cultural identity.

>>54852984
>It's not the fact that they're ignoring your points more so that there is no single unifying defining system for what you're discussing.
Oh you fucking mongoloids, you fucking human GARBAGE, you are the ones claiming that "occult" means "magic". YOU SHITSTAINS are the ones who are fucking simplying the system, claming universality and simple model where reality is more complex. I am the one who is pointing out the actual historical facts and context, academical views, basic fucking etymology and semiotics. So shut the fuck up, stuck that head up your ass and crawl away.

>It's all fruitless regardless, as magic is non-existent.
You such a fucking moron, how are you even alive? You don't have even the FAINTEST FUCKING CLUE what we are talking about here. Why the fuck do you fucking pollute the world with you opinions of fuck sake?

>>54853006
I've just proved that it's not. But I give up. You retards will literally just ignore any arguments and any evidence, so why bother. I fucking give up.

>>54853026
>I've just proved that it's not

You did not.

>>54853026
Again, perhaps stop falling on capital letters and maybe, just maybe, people will take you a tad more seriously.

>>54853043
I don't give two flying fucks if the human fucking refuse that rots around this thread is taking me serious or not at this point. This is willful stupidity. This is not people who actually don't know something, these are people who DESIRE TO BE WRONG. So why the fuck should I care at this fucking point?

>>54853043
>people will take you a tad more seriously
Not him but people won't because they are too booty blasted to stop arguing and accept the fact they barely have any knowledge on the topic.

File: IMG_1204.jpg (167KB, 736x691px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 736x691px

First off, magic wasn't unmanly. Everyone used magic in those days. "Seiðr" was unmanly.

But Odin didn't care because he's greatest wizard of all and wanted to master all forms of magic. And the semen shit is random bullshit by some jew in the 70's. I've never heard of anything involving semen and Odin or any gay shit like that in the Eddas or Sagas.

t. Nordmann

>>54853053
He's only wrong on the definition of the Occult, which is what kills me.

File: W E W.jpg (43KB, 277x391px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 277x391px

>using a degree in occult studies a massive "only sane man" appeal to authority so they don't have to acknowledge the remote possibility that their (admittedly) well founded definition, like other definitions, isn't necessarily absolute

>>54853049
The only one here acting willfully stupid is you, friend.

Poor OP and his poor fucking thread.

>>54853063
>definition of the Occult
Can you tell how this definition was born? When did the word occultism first appear and what it denote at the time?

>>54853075
rip in pieces, you poor inquisitive bastard (;- ; )7

>inb4 emote sperging

>>54853073
Oh the irony

Definition of the Occult

adjective
>of or relating to magic, astrology, or any system claiming use or knowledge of secret or supernatural powers or agencies.
>beyond the range of ordinary knowledge or understanding; mysterious.
>secret; disclosed or communicated only to the initiated.
>hidden from view.

noune
>the supernatural or supernatural agencies and affairs considered as a whole
>occult studies or sciences

lol, they're not incorrect

File: IMG_1208.jpg (44KB, 399x385px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 399x385px

>>54852348
>80% of witches in African folklore are women

Get the fuck out, that's how I know you're lying

>>54853096

Checks out

>>54845484
I think what everyone is trying to say is that your friend is wrong and that mythology can't be trusted as there are so many differing sources and rewrites that it's become meaningless. On top of that, mythology is fiction already.

I think to make your game feel like it has a more "traditional" feel of magic simply make it scarce and have seemingly mundane effects. Casting millions of lightning bolts from one's hand definitely does not have a "traditional" magic vibe as would shapeshifting.

As for woman being better or worse than men: it's magic. Who the hell knows how it actually works. From stories I've read, magic users can practice magic, but there's no real way to know how it works. Gods and other divine beings are usually the only ones who can use it with any certainty.

Do what you think "feels" right.

File: 1438961653289.png (56KB, 512x384px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 512x384px

>Person who studied "magic" "academically" has a lot of raw nerves and expects to not only carry an argument as if he wasn't going to fly off the handle, but have people take him as seriously
Otherwise I enjoyed the thread, good reference material.

>>54853096
Stop, you're just going to make him conjure forth another massive wall of sperg

>>54853096
See >>54853076

>>54853066
>using a degree in occult studies
Psychology and social anthropology. The whole point is that there is nothing occult about them. Magic is part of the same subset of socio-psychological phenomena as religion and mythology, subjects that are routinely and throughly studied by hundreds of thousands of academicians, historians, archeologists, social and even medical personnel.
And you do realize that the concept of "occult" has historical and pragmatic context, right? You can't just say that all definitions, regardless of the context, are equally valid. My fucking point is to make people acknowledge the context of this terminologies as vital.

The words - like all words - have history, and have functionality: they are routinely used in some way. You can't ignore the context, you can't ignore the discourse that created them, and you can't ignore the discourse in which they are being used today.

>>54853122
You're just precious

File: 1bf.jpg (9KB, 334x274px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 334x274px

>>54853096
>>54853109

>>54853129
I know, sweetie

>>54853109
>Person who studied "magic" "academically"
Do you people not know about the existence of studies of human culture, mythology and also magical practices?
What the ACTUAL. FUCK. These are subjects of psychology, cognitive science and anthropology. And to a limited degree even history and archeology for crying out loud. It's an integral and common part of human history and culture for fuck sake.

>>54853150
Some more capital letters there. I see you've learned nothing at all. I think it's due past your bedtime.

File: 19113721_10102997571185343_1426406025320421359_n.jpg (27KB, 453x408px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 453x408px

>>54853125
>"isn't necessarily absolute" =/= all definitions are equal
>implying I know nothing about magic's relation to religion and mythology or the need for context in discussion
>the entire point of the post was suggesting that you might want to dial it back some

Making a LOT of assumptions right now.

>>54853096
You do realize that this definition in particular proves me right, right?

"Study of SECRET powers or agencies".
"Shit that certain specific people deem "mysterious".
"Hidden from view"
"Disclosed, or only communicated to the initiated"
"supernatural"

All of these prove me right. Because 90% of all worlds historical magical practices don't actually fit into these criteria for fuck sake!

See the fucking problem?

>>54853173
So you're going back on your words now?

lol

>>54853173
>Because 90% of all worlds historical magical practices don't actually fit into these criteria for fuck sake!

Nah, the dictionary is pretty conclusive. It all fits.

>>54853173
Definition
>"of or relating to magic, astrology, or any system claiming use or knowledge of secret or supernatural powers or agencies"
You
>90% of all worlds historical magical practices don't actually fit into these criteria for fuck sake!

lol

File: itdidnthavetobelikethis.jpg (123KB, 1131x707px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1131x707px

>the status of this thread

Just ignore the /x/ retard, for fucks sakes

Or not, because he's clearly on the defensive

>>54853160
>Well I'm out of arguments.
>Better talk about size of letters!
Why don't you just shut up if you have no fucking actual thing to say?

>>54853164
Dude, what do you think definitions and knowledge in general is for?
And why the fuck should I dial down being FUCKING RIGHT?!
Fuck these cunts, and fuck you coward for actually complaining about the person who has the proper arguments and knowledge in this thread.
There is a dozen people being abjectly ignorant of the subject, flat out lying at times, but you chose to shit on the person who actually knows what they are talking about. Great.

>>54853194
>>54853180
Is this a joke or just plain desperation? You just provided definition that clearly defines occult as only fascination in things that are deemed secret or hidden.
Do you think transubstantiation is hidden or secret? How are the christmas customs of cutting an apple in half qualify as secret? How do purification rituals of Shinto qualify as secret? How do healing rituals of Carajá people qualify as secret?

>>54853200
>knowledge of secret or supernatural
SECRET. Jesus I fucking give up.

>>54853218
I'm literally the only person who views this problem from a modern scientific perspective, while the rest of these shits actually only know about magic because they find romantic occult notions appealing, which is why they insist magic and occult has to be the same.

You literally got it backwards you retard.

>>54853238
Just look at this glorious text of sperg

File: 1495474825488.jpg (53KB, 790x600px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 790x600px

>>54853208
Maybe lone anon with a degree will be able to educate retards. I'm still hoping for that at least.

>>54853238
>of or relating to magic, astrology, OR any system claiming use or knowledge of secret OR supernatural powers or agencies
>"or"

Nice, read the text next time, dingus

>>54853238
>the person who has the proper arguments and knowledge in this thread.
You've been the exact opposite of that

To add insult to yourself you've effectively eradicated a perfectly normal thread with your own self inserted definitions.

>pretends they were the only one being attacked like there weren't several rebuttals to the people disagreeing with them
>not acknowledging that shit-tier conduct in debate can cast a bad impression upon an otherwise good point, thus shooting yourself in the foot

we've reached peak victim complex, time to wrap it up folx

>>54853245
It takes a retard to educate a retard

>>54853255
>OR supernatural powers or agencies
So Christianity is occultism?

Because I use the same dictionary at that's what it give me for 'supernatural'

adjective
1. of, relating to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.
3. of a superlative degree; preternatural:
a missile of supernatural speed.
4. of, relating to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult.

>>54853280
>So Christianity is occultism?

Abrahamic religions has heavily influenced western magic, yes. Definitely.

>>54853280
Given how various older religious practices CAN fall under the occult umbrella, it's true in a categorical sense.

>>54853278
You can become a teacher, I see

>>54853289
>>54853293
Oh wait, there is more.
>of a superlative degree; preternatural:
So not only Jesus Christ is an occultist. Everything showing extreme qualities is occult too. Extremophile organisms? According to your dictionary they are occult too.

>>54853238
There were so many flavours but you chose to be autism.

>>54853313
Oh jeez, falling on the 'all or nothing' tactic now, are we?

>>54853313
>cue projection of the absolutism that's the crux of the insufferable aura in this thread

yep

>>54853313
I guess he is

:^)

File: a16bdb252d6190a3bc86755473e0fa29.jpg (37KB, 291x565px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 291x565px

>>54853313

File: 796.jpg (27KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 625x626px

>>54853331

>>54853324
>>54853344
Anon, it's in the dictionary. Do you want to argue with the dictionary?

>>54853268
I'm still waiting for an actual argument or proof.

>>54853255
It equates the two.
And that is the real problem.
If you look at the definition again, you'll find it offers FOUR different definitions.
THREE of them focus explicitly on hidden or secret.
ONE EQUATES supernatural and hidden.

So first of all the very idea of supernatural already is very specifically 19th century Western philosophy-unique. The binarity between natural and supernatural world is not something universal - in fact it's something largely unique to secularist, rationality and empiricism-driven Western schools of thought. I can assure you that neither 19th century Indians, Japanese or Chinese viewed the world as easily divided into "natural" and "supernatural" world: to them, both were the same things, magic was as part of nature as folk physics were.

Second of all, and this is again why I started arguing this shit: 19th century Europe rejected majority of magical thinking (all forms that were not canonized by the Christian faith), which is why all forms of magic thinking had to be done in relative secrecy or obscurity.
And it's this fascination with secret and obscure that gave birth to the idea of "occult", LITERALLY MEANING HIDDEN.

And it was a fascinating movement, but it completely failed to reflect magical thinking as it was and still is present in the rest of the "majority world".

And it's this historically and philosophically founded MIS-equation of obscurity and hidden knowledge with magic that I took issue with in the first place.

Occult is based on historically conditioned western Enlightenist idea that magic is something hidden or obscured.
But in reality, that is just not the case in most instances. It wasn't the case even through much of European history.

And that is the whole point here. Occult misidentifies magic with secrecy and hidden, and uses western modern frameworks of natural vs. supernatural.
Those are culturally conditioned criteria, not universal.

>>54845484
Look up the Volva of norse society. only women are allowed to magic, but odin did practice it, though odin is unmanly for doing so, and possibly had to cross dress to do it.

Fucking shit, they actually cooled it. Legit impressed, glad I didn't take bets.

>>54853289
>Abrahamic religions has heavily influenced western magic, yes. Definitely.
I really dare to say that to anyone who has any interest or knowledge of the subject.

You talk about how your definition is "how it's used". I dare you to find me a religionist, theologist, sociologist, antropologist, or historian who would agree that Christianity is an occult organization.
Seriously. Ignoring that it literally states "christianity is a hidden, secret organization", I just want you to show me a person who would actually fucking agree that is the proper use of the word.

>>54853375
>Christianity is an occult organization.

No, I'm just stating that Abrahamic religions have heavily influenced magic.

I rarely see people this retarded on /tg/

>>54846008
Considering what a sensitive clump of nerves a clitoris is i'm guessing that most powerful spell are cast through their pussy? Did you make a magical realm man?

>>54853358
The Occult isn't exclusively about the hidden. It's also the subject of magic and mysticism throughout the world.

>>54853358
*sigh* you really can't take opposing opinions, can you?

You should just agree to disagree at thus point. It's not like any of you are right or wrong about this.
/x/ natives would school you on this topic

>>54853375
Rosicrucians.

>>54853391
And "magic" and "occult" are not the two same things. That is the crux of the argument. If you admit that Abrahamic religions contain magical rituals, yet you refuse to identify those as occult rituals and occult organizations, then you proved my own fucking point.
Magic is human universal.
But "occultism" is a fascination with secret and hidden forms of magical thinking as a product of a magical-thinking-rejecting society of 19th century.

>>54853411
I love how once you are beaten to death with actual arguments, including the fucking basic historical context AND the fucking MEANING OF THE WORD "OCCULT" which LITERALLY MEANS "HIDDEN", and the definitions you yourself presented, you just reset and go back to the very beggining of the discussion.

Everything that you had claimed, and I had claimed and proven and supported with all kinds of evidence is ignored.
Just go back to begining of the discussion and make the same exact claim you just failed to prove, and I disproved. Great fucking job.

>>54853375
The Vatican is pretty damn secretive, anon

>>54853425
>And "magic" and "occult" are not the two same things

Magic is grouped into the occult, yes. They're not the same thing, it's a well rounded definition.

>>54853430
Just like any other government.

>>54853399
It's summer, anon, kids are still here

File: 6e9.png (23KB, 500x275px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 500x275px

>>54853421
>You should just agree to disagree at thus point. >It's not like any of you are right or wrong about this.
>/x/ natives would school you on this topic
>"there's no right and wrong except for those /x/ guys they're totes right

Goddamnit at least be subtle

>>54853425

See >>54853096

>>54853421
>*sigh* you really can't take opposing opinions, can you?
When they are provably wrong? Yeah.

>You should just agree to disagree at thus point. It's not like any of you are right or wrong about this.
Why? I'm fucking right and I provide constant arguments for fuck sake. What is this argument? "You should agree to disagree because I'm out of arguments?" What the fuck?

>/x/ natives would school you on this topic
Yeah, /x/ is totally the place I'd go and ask. Crazy magic-obsessed people who literally believe in ghosts. Not the fucking academic field dedicated to studying the subject matter in a modern, almost scientific way and rigor. /x/. Jesus.

>>54853440
No, occult is a specific narrow interest in magic. Not vice versa. All practices labeled as occult have been forms of magical practices, but not even ONE PERCENT of all magical practices can be labeled as occult practices.

>>54853425
You realize magic isn't real, right?

>>54853450
>but not even ONE PERCENT of all magical practices can be labeled as occult practices.

Welp, I didn't think you could have gone much dumber. But you just proved me wrong.

>>54853447
See
>>54853280
>>54853313
We come back to the fact definition of 'occult' in this dictionary is pisspoor and very inaccurate

>>54853450
>I'm fucking right
You're as right as they are

>>54853450
>magical practices can be labeled as occult practices.
If they're hidden from people, that makes therm occult, anon.

Most practitioners of magic don't fucking advertise, mostly because of people like you and people like /x/. That's why they're occulted.

>>54853447
That definition is actually one of the many things I've used to prove you people wrong. Did you not even read the posts?

You see: this is why I have such a deep, profound distadain for you shits. This really IS willful ignorance. This is desire to not be right. I don't think you people are actually mentally deficient, but I'm pretty sure you are actually mentally ill.

>>54853462
Once again: why do retards painfully clueless about the subject try to even participate on this discussion?
What the fuck do you mean "magic is not real"? What the fuck do you think magic is? Do you realize that magic is not the shit you see in fantasy? That it is a real-world set of beliefs and practices that play an integral role in our cultural history?
That is what magic is. And where fantasy ultimately took it's inspiration. It's no less real than religion, or philosophy, or passion for sports, or nationality.

>>54853462
...and?

p. sure we've established that's beside the point, m8

keep going at this rate and watch the fedora tipper accusations fly

>>54853482
Inaccurate to you, maybe. You're self inserting your own views as fact. That's not how this works.

>>54853462
We've been here >>54853009

>All practices labeled as occult have been forms of magical practices, but not even ONE PERCENT of all magical practices can be labeled as occult practices.
>all forms of magical practice have been labeled as occult
>not even one percent of magical practices can be labeled as occult

Um

>>54853490
You need to take deep breaths, buddy.

>>54852593
>is a screeching Tumblr shithead AND never met a Catholic
Transsubstantiation is explicitly NOT magical OR performed by the priest, it's a miracle that occurs to the believer at the moment of ingestion of the Host due to its properties as the body and blood of Christ. Calling it magic is massive heresy.

>>54853497
Anon, It's all in the dictionary

>>54853519
Yes, it is! Glad we can agree on something. All magic can be said to be occult in nature.

>>54853506
I'm honestly amazed at this point

>>54852723
>occultism is a invention of a bunch of really bored kids in 19th century
God damn you're ignorant, although I guess that goes hand in hand with being a tumblrina. Even the specific type of occultism you're trying to equate with all occultism here was invented not later than the 17th century, and probably in the 16th, as a *product of the Renaissance*.

>>54853529
inb4 "NO U"

Jesus, just let him tire himself out so he can go to sleep.

>>54853529
Anon, demonstrate me please how you came from this
>relating to magic
to
>All magic can be said to be occult in nature
How did you translate 'related to' as 'covering the magic as a whole'?

>>54853548
>of or relating to magic, astrology, or any system claiming use of knowledge of secret or supernatural powers or agencies

The definition checks out

>>54853529
Jumping right to your desired conclusion? That's not how this works, anon.

>>54853542
no

we are made to suffer for his arrogance and we shall repay him in kind

(for srs tho, he's proven too volatile to not be targeted so I wouldn't hold my breath m8)

>>54853471
>Welp, I didn't think you could have gone much dumber.
I love how you still post this shit when you have literally no actual claim?
I've provided a set of examples of magical practices that can't be deemed as hidden or secret. What have you provided?
Some of them being part of magical ritual that one third of the world participated on every week for two thousand years. Rest being parts of shit like basic religious purification rituals or healing magic, which is honestly the oldest and most frequent and common form of magic (hell, we still practice it ourselves, much to dismay of our scientific medical community).

Sure, the one percent number is a hyperbole. It's impossible to actually quantify the volumes, but the point is that overwhelming majority of documented magical practices through out history and cultures are not in any way secretetive or hidden.

>>54853510
And once again, when out of any form of argument, you still insist on posting for some fucking reason.

>>54853513
And now ask anyone who ISN'T a catholic. Starting with protestants. Fun fact: do you know where the magic formula "hocus pocus" is assumed to come from?

>>54853539
Are you denying that the term "occult" appeared in the same sense we use it today in 19th century, as a fascination with hidden magical practices? Seriously?
I want you to give me evidence of common use of the term "occult" and "occultism" as a label for hidden magical practices and the hobby of studying them prior to 19th century.
Because the fact that occultism took interest in practices older than 19th century does not mean that those practices were "occult". It means that people in the 19th century who practiced occultism took interest in them.

>>54853566
>relating
>as a whole
I give you another try

>>54853583
>I've provided a set of examples of magical practices that can't be deemed as hidden or secret

That's not the sole definition of the occult, anon

:^)

>>54853585
>of OR relating to magic
>the supernatural or supernatural agencies and affairs considered as a WHOLE

Try again

>>54853590
According to dictionary.com you are retarded enough to be considered occult

>>54852885
>Dude, I fucking study magical practices for living.
If you do, how come you don't even know basic shit, like that >>54852348
>EVERY historical deity of magic is female
is totally ridiculous and backwards, or that the oracle is actually the breath of Apollo or whatever other thing is inducing the visions whereas the speaker or sibyl is just some random bitch placed IN the oracle to give human voice to it, who doesn't have any powers of her own and typically dies in a few years from inhaling so much gas?

>>54853590
Except that is what the word means, the definition that YOU provided states, and what the majority of academicians and historicans of the subject agree upon.
But once again, ignoring everything I've proven so far and going back to the start of the discussion.

What a fucking GARBAGE indeed. Beyond any belief.

>>54853606
>relating to
>everything magic
You have one more life, anon. Fail and you have to start level again.

Retards belong in /x/

Why are you still responding to him

>>54853622
>or

I think we're done here

>>54853609
Uh... this has to be some kind of misunderstanding.
The two posts you quoted are not in any way connected. I would of course point out that not every diety of magic is female (somebody already stressed out cases like Thoft (Thot) in Egypt, who was deemed a diety of magical practice among others, and was decisively male. More importantly, it's kinda dumb to assume that there is such a thing as clear diety of magic to begin with.

But otherwise... what the hell. I originally argued that strictly statistically, you will find more incidents of using magic associated with females than males, and about how trying to create some kind of power-level-comparisons is actually kind dumb, especially since male-specific dominance hiearachies will mess the thing up.

I'd assume you refered post, but the fact that you actually also quote me suggests that there is some bigger misunderstanding at hand.

>>54853623
It's probably a fat wicca chick

>>54853639
>sad 16 bit music start playing
Yep, better luck next time

>>54852889
Except nobody said that, OP just asked if it was true what his friend said that women were most magicians in folklore and mythology. But it's not, so we said as much. (If you know anything about what the past was like for women you should be able to figure out pretty easily that they didn't have a lot of WOMYNPOWR narratives, really)

Then a greasy-haired tumblrina appeared and started screaming and faking credentials badly. They're the ones who try to revise the past because it makes them uncomfortable and they want the present day to be anomalously oppressive rather than anomalously nice for women.

I'm sure we didn't expect all this talk of SJW and Tumblr to pop up in this thread. We would do well to turn it down and get back on topic.

All this because one person doesn't like the word 'occult' and what its definition entails?

Glorious thread.

>>54853352
Not him, but... Dictionaries are descriptive, because language is ultimately a tool, not a prescription. If a common usage of a word isn't included in the dictionary, or if an old definition that's no longer in use is, it's the dictionary that's at fault, not the speaker.

>>54853654
>The two posts you quoted are not in any way connected.
No, that's why it says "or". As in, why do you believe Retarded Nonsense A OR Retarded Nonsense B? Both are things which would have seen me fail a class on their own, so why do you believe so much rubbish if you're a professional? Are you the kind of """anthropologist""" who just makes shit up and never actually looks at historical sources and comparative research? Or are you just a liar?

I'm guessing the latter is what I'm saying, basically, from your angry screeching and your ridiculous unfacts.

Mods should delete this thread

>>54853583
>And now ask anyone who ISN'T a catholic.
But that's not what you said. You said >>54852593
>Ever heard of transmutation?!
>No. Every catholic priest preforms a magical ritual of transmutation during every single mass. That is at least once a fucking week. Monks, on the other hand, have NO ACTUAL CAPACITY to perform miracles unless they are actually saints - in which case it's not them preforming miracles, it's God who does it.
That is, you were replying to a guy who said monks worked miracles, discussing Catholicism from the *internal* view (unless you mean to tell me that Hindus and atheists believe the Christian God works miracles through his saints).

This is just a feeble attempt to move the goalposts so nobody will notice that you were caught out ignorant.

>>54853026
>Oh you fucking mongoloids, you fucking human GARBAGE, you are the ones claiming that "occult" means "magic". YOU SHITSTAINS
This is good acacemic language, it really lends credence to your claims of superior knowledge.

>>54853056
>And the semen shit is random bullshit by some jew in the 70's. I've never heard of anything involving semen and Odin or any gay shit like that in the Eddas or Sagas.
To be honest, I'm pretty sure this is 100% correct, maybe minus the Jew part. I've never seen any period source for this alleged semen drinking.

>>54853693
What the fuck is going on... are you having a stroke? Those posts don't fucking connect to each other at ALL.
Is this some new kind of trolling? I'm confused as fuck.

>>54853747
>This is good acacemic language, it really lends credence to your claims of superior knowledge.
Yeah, because academics aren't people and can't get mad at retards in an anonymous environment, you fucking pile of garbage.

>>54853757
Keep using childish insults, it's bound to make you right eventually.

>>54853757
One would think an academic would try a bit harder to remember how important conduct is to the idea of debate - that kind of instability not only gives your opponents something to latch on to, it brings into question your ability to properly discuss fact.

For the record: Tone alone does not render an argument invalid, but a clash between the two casts aspersions nonetheless.

Of course, going into any given debate with a win-lose mentality above all else could arguably have been the first mistake that was made.

File: de occulta philosophia.jpg (779KB, 2382x3136px) Image search: [Google]

779KB, 2382x3136px

>>54853583
>Are you denying that the term "occult" appeared in the same sense we use it today in 19th century, as a fascination with hidden magical practices? Seriously?
Yeah, pretty much. Go ahead and read me off the print date on pic related.

That's not the first edition, by the way.

He already lost this

Just get back on topic

>>54853056
this is correct.
The semen shit was all basically made up. nothing about it shows in any actual reading or historical evidence.

>>54853804
Let's not. This is so much fun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gqw1FI1hfJA

>>54853804
That's cute, anon. Wanna star in my new slice-of-life series? Cute anon doing cute things.

>>54853834
I demand this thread be filled with cute magic practitioners immediately

>>54853802
WHOOPS
>Three Books of Occult Philosophy (De Occulta Philosophia libri III) is Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa's study of occult philosophy, acknowledged as a significant contribution to the Renaissance philosophical discussion concerning the powers of ritual magic, and its relationship with religion. The first book was printed in 1531 in Paris, Cologne, and Antwerp, while the full three volumes first appeared in Cologne in 1533.

>The three books deal with Elemental, Celestial and Intellectual magic. The books outline the four elements, astrology, kabbalah, numbers, angels, God's names, the virtues and relationships with each other as well as methods of utilizing these relationships and laws in medicine, scrying, alchemy, ceremonies, origins of what are from the Hebrew, Greek and Chaldean context.

Wonder how Tumblranon will try to weasel out of this one?

>>54853857
So much pwnage.

File: 1583747384859.jpg (46KB, 504x800px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 504x800px

>>54853857
Tumblranon will find a way.

Tumblranon always finds a way

>>54853793
My arguments already proved me right long time ago. Children and women are the ones who think tone matters more than content of speech. I've already proven myself right several times in this thread.

>>54853797
Actually, academician is the one who knows that the conduct does not actually matter. The rules of conduct are imposed and used purely for our own comfort and benefits, coming from the fact that we all inhernetly and from the start assume cooperation and welcoming, fair approach to the disscussion. Something that people around here do not do.

Academicians know that it's your argument that makes you right - even if you are an asshole. That is why being an asshole is generally uneccessary, and thus avoided. Also because academicians - unlike what ever garbage lurks in these threads, are actual people and behave in way that makes them DESERVING actual respect and courtesy.

>>54853802
The Three Books Hidden Philosophy. Specifically studies magical practices of CHRISTIAN context: such as demonology, cosmology, concepts that were considered "The secret side of theology".
Not actually applicable to any form of magic outside of this particular context. And yes, this book actually gave the 19th century movement it's name. Except in this case, "the occult" just literally means what the latin word means. Hidden. It's a book called "hidden" or "secret" philosophy. The concept of Occultism as a practice or way of viewing magic comes from (among other) rediscovery and renewed interest in this and similar books.

>>54853802
>appeared in the same sense we use it today
Anon, please, did you even look what's in the book?

>>54853802
>>54853857
>>54853883
occult (adj.) 1530s, "secret, not divulged," from Middle French occulte and directly from Latin occultus "hidden, concealed, secret," past participle of occulere "cover over, conceal," from assimilated form of ob "over" (see ob-) + a verb related to celare "to hide," from PIE root *kel- (1) "to cover, conceal, save." Meaning "not apprehended by the mind, beyond the range of understanding" is from 1540s. The association with the supernatural sciences (magic, alchemy, astrology, etc.) dates from 1630s.

>The association with the supernatural sciences (magic, alchemy, astrology, etc.) dates from 1630s.
>The association with the supernatural sciences (magic, alchemy, astrology, etc.) dates from 1630s.
>The association with the supernatural sciences (magic, alchemy, astrology, etc.) dates from 1630s.

He's getting destroyed

>>54853898
>magic
>supernatural sciences
That's awesome, my man

>>54853704
The thread is fine, it's the men vs. women that has triggered people into autistic obsession.

>>54853898
Can you please show me a singe material from 1630 that uses the word "supernatural" and "science"?

File: Outstanding.gif (500KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

500KB, 500x281px

>Screaming harridan Tumblr anon appears and tries to fake a degree and job
>Anons who actually know shit mobilize in thread and calmly take the tard apart with citations and pictures

>>54853931
It's actually the /x/ fag that's ruining it.

>>54853942
>ruined it

A perfectly fine and interesting thread ruined because of his insecurities over the definition of a fucking word.

File: image.jpg (24KB, 442x332px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 442x332px

Maybe Magic isn't really a singular concept that shares an easily identifiable definition that's universal across all cultures, mythologies and belief systems, So the concept of one sex been better at it over the other depends entirely on the cultural context.

>>54853956
>because of his insecurities over the definition of a fucking word.
Nah, originally she was clearly assmangled at people knowing that magic wasn't historically female. The "occultism" thing was just a thread slide to avoid people realizing how little proof she actually had for the other shit.

>>54853975
>>54853942
>>54853939
Jesus Christ the fucking lenghts you go in inventing a fictional backstory just so that you can still feel superior after getting your ass handed to you in a discussion is fucking terrifying.
God dammit. Do you not fucking actually listen or read what you are saying?

>>54853939
The dumb thing is it's fantasy and historically regardless of what the majority option might be you can find evidence and inspiration for either take, so the entire discussion is almost totally irrelevant. But as you say, bitches goin' get triggered.

That said I think this is just memeing >>54853026

>>54853883
It shouldn't to you, but it does - as my memories of junior year reminds me, rhetoric is not purely logos. Ethos and pathos have to count for something at SOME point, I'd imagine, if only to paint a picture of what the person presenting the argument is like.

Or, if you will, to give their arguments a form of... context.

In terms of logos, tone should not, and usually does not matter, but matters of rhetoric are usually persuasive in nature, even if only minorly so - and to that end, the persuader must be able to build a sort of trustworthiness in the eyes of their intended audience by demonstrating understanding of both the audience and the subject matter. Most audiences, as it happens, do not take to verbal abuse and browbeating, no matter how justifiable it may be.

Facts are not worthless, but presentation cannot be carried by that alone. Recitation is one thing, comprehension another, and presentation a third.

File: 1487767293212.gif (163KB, 190x199px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 190x199px

>>54853975
>she was clearly assmangled at people knowing that magic wasn't historically female
Why are you making shit up, anon? Are dumb, anon?

>>54854025
He's referring to the anon that claimed all deities of magic were women, and that at one point all magicians were women.

It might not be the same person, but it's a prime example of autists lurking in this thread.

>>54854038
I'm sure it's not even the same person.

>>54854038
>It might not be the same person
Sure it *might* not, but if you've been on this board for more than a couple of months you recognize that pattern of escalating sperg shitloss after the initial claim is rejected and increasing claims of expertise and pro knowledge (which then just regurgitates common myths and pop understanding of the subject).

>>54854054
On what basis?

>>54854038
Uh, being the guy who was actually arguing about the difference between occult and magic, the one who has been for some absolutely inexplicable reason accused of being from /x/ and tumbler and being a woman and GOD knows what else:

I never made that claim. That is literally what people randomly identified me with because the accusations of feminism and political agenda is making them feel superior because they actually completely lost the argument about terminology.

I actually made only one claim on the subject of male and female representation among users of magic: stressing out that actually trying to boil it down to "whose stronger" is pretty damn because mythology does not really care for juvenile "powerlevel" comparisons, stressed out that when it features hierarchies, those will generally be more likely male-dominated because that is how most hierarchies work, and that in general, women would be more likely statistically identified with magical practices, which does not speak really about who is "stronger" or "better" at it: it's just a deeply ingrained by-product of gender dichotomies.

I will add that the reasons why women are statistically more likely associated with magical practices are related to fundamental cognitive differences (higher prevailence of openness and agreeableness in personality analysis), as well as their role in procreation. I'd also point out that I'm talking about real world societies, not necessarily representations in mythology.

It never really occured to me to compare numbers of magic-associated mythological female and male figures, but I'd wager that are going to be about equal, with males USUALLY being higher on dominance hierarchies again... because that is what men do.

Could you now fuck off with the accusations of feminism, political interests or the god-damn association with /x/? It's really sad to read, honestly.

The most hilarious thing in the thread actually is the newfags trying to turn an obvious /x/fag into a "tumblrite"...

>>54854132
On what basis did you come to conclusion it's the same person?

>>54854148
Actually, the saddest thing is how newfags are trying to push a "he must be an X identity" because they literally can't make any other argument.

>>54854141
>I'd also point out that I'm talking about real world societies

If you're talking about real world occult societies post-Renaissance, then they were male dominated.

>>54854025
See >>54854132

>>54854038
>He's referring to the anon that claimed all deities of magic were women, and that at one point all magicians were women.
Actually, I wasn't. That anon, whether it was the same or a different one, entered the thread *after* the initial shitloss of Tumblr-kun. Tumblr-kun started out defending magic as predominantly female as well, though. Here's the exchange:
>>54852021
>>54852141
>>54852199
>>54852236
And >>54852420 is the initial big spergout.

>>54854166
He's probably referring to present day. Women have started a revival of sorts in the past decades.

>>54854165
Ethos is the most important part of rhetoric, isn't it? Presenting other person as untrustworthy is the best argument.

>>54854166
Men heavily dominated in nearly every category as a cultural norm, so this isn't really surprising.

>>54854166
>If you're talking about real world societies post-Renaissance,
That is really narrowing it down from virtually all of human history to very specific part of history of one continent.
>OCCULT societies
That is narrowing it down even further to just about 1% or less of all magical practices existing in that era: basically to a very specific, small philosophical school that may have counted in hundreds or thousand scholars at max at times...
But yeah, definitely. "Occult societies" of post-renessaince era were in absolute majority highly educated philosophers and scholars. It don't think you'd find a single woman studying the subject. Well, possibly because you'd not find any women studying... anything at the time.

If we expand the definition of occult societies to also things like local cults, sabbats and similar things... that is where things will get a bit murkier (the institute of a "witch" actually existed), but I'd say outside of the narrow elite philosophers you'd probably end up with around 40-60 in favor of women (wise women, midwifes etc... bloat the number somewhat). We are discounting, of course, christian priests, who would again move the favor on the male side...

So: occult "sciences" in post-renessaince Europe: Purely male.
Folklore practices... maybe bit more females then males if not counting priesthood, more males than females if counting priesthood.
Would you be satisfied with this proposition?

>>54854148
Mostly because brainlets see a vaguely feminist bent and instantly think "tumblr". Not necessarily wrong in this case (because lack of information is a thing), just pointlessly reductive. There's not much to indicate they don't have the appearance of just another rank-and-file instant expert.

>>54854184
It's as important as any other - going "attack attack attack!" from the gate can easily be exposed as you relying on the other's shortcomings to vindicate yourself. Using moral high ground that can be obtained easily in this method to justify one's one future messiness is a similarly perilous practice.

It's valid, just don't be surprised if you get BTFO accordingly.

>>54854251
For a given definition of 'valid' anyway, that is.

>>54854241
There's nothing to satisfy. It's common sense.

>>54854174
Only half of those posts are mine.
And I stand behind those:
Midwifes, witches, wise old women, priestess and shrine maidens do push the statistical numbers of women being associated with magic in female favor. You'll find more detailed on why here >>54854141
There is nothing "tumbler" about it, it's not about powerstruggle between males and females (there is no such thing, really, it's a Marxist invention). It's a simple observation.

Females are more easily associated with magical practice, and also more statistically likely to BELIEVE in magical practices.
Males however, being dominance hierarchy driven, will assume posts that will be externally associated with "higher" positions. That is why say, in shinto: majority of sacred personnel are female, but all posts of higher authority are male (miko don't actually have anywhere "higher" to go, while kannushi is A) above Miko in authority and B) can actuall attain even higher ranks among other kannushi.

>>54854290
Yeah, if you read the fucking thread then you'd realize that is something very rare to come across here. You should probably be fucking glad that somebody who knows what the fuck they are talking to you is giving you the kind of info you desire but don't really seem to have.

>>54854328
Umm, excuse me?

>>54854241
>>54854315
I usually associate women with *lesser* folk/hedge magics, whilst the men are more so concerned with 'greater' high ritual, more rigid systems.

Just what I've gathered from my time studying religion over the course of two years.

>>54854315
>Only half of those posts are mine.
He said he posted the *exchange*, dingus.

Christ, now I HOPE you're a liar, so there isn't some place in the world where they have this low standards for intelligence and reading comprehension in an anthropology department.

File: WEW.jpg (9KB, 326x259px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 326x259px

>>54854328
>someone posts one line that actually agrees with them
>chews the sap out regardless

W E W L A D S
E
W
L
A
D
S

>>54854368
>I usually associate women with *lesser* folk/hedge magics, whilst the men are more so concerned with 'greater' high ritual, more rigid systems.
Kinda, though it may be also somewhat biased by just the classic European history where "higher" magic became a subject of aformentioned "occult philosophies".
Rest is mostly caused by the fact that, well: the idea of being "higher" is really kind of principlaly male obsession. Women generally don't need these kinds of vertial comparisons quite as much.

And of course, this is all talk of essential social organization. It may stop working (or working as reliably) when we come to mythological representations.

Oh yeah, and of course - going all the way back, with associations of male and order, and female and chaos: any time you have talk about organized, "ordered" magic (which is a perfect case of the medieval hermeneutic approach to magic), it's going to be almost definitively male thing.

I think STILL assuming that males are the "better" at magic is as fallacious as assuming that "order" is better or more important than "chaos". It's in the end unavoidable complimentarity, which makes the original problem somewhat silly.

>>54854463
>though it may be also somewhat biased by just the classic European history
It could be bias, though it was more than likely the cultural norm. Men dominated in nearly every field of, well, anything.

I wouldn't think the topic of 'magic' was an exclusion regarding this facet of history.

>>54845484
It's interesting to note that while folklore often pits women (at least in Europe) alongside magic, it was the men that practiced it the most, developing actual definable systems for it.

They took it far enough as to be a precursor to natural philosophy, which in turn was the precursor to modern science.

File: damn dabbling frog.jpg (95KB, 436x600px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 436x600px

Men were accused of witchcraft and sorcery at least as much as women before the Middle Ages.

Magic being solely focused on women is a very recent thing. It was more of an even split during antiquity.

>>54853026
>>2017 and having this much delusion

>>54854614
>it was the men that practiced it the most, developing actual definable systems for it.
Well, the two statements are not necessarily complimentary. Men developed definable systems for it, but that does not mean that it was more men practicing it. It's also rather misleading to claim that magical practices were precursors of natural philosophy. Actual organised systems of magic in Western cultures actually developed as a COUNTERPOINT to growing interest to natural philosophy (though it is interesting that often by the same people), the two systems were usually fairly strictly separated.

>>54854665
Maybe outside of one crazy person at the very begining of thread, I don't think anyone would ever claim that magic was ever solely focused on women. That is literally just fringe, crazy talk of wicca freaks.
However, the fundamental issue of females just statistically be more likely to be practicing or believing magical practices is on the table.

File: 1502343187129.jpg (75KB, 519x600px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 519x600px

>>54854720
>I've just proved that it's not. But I give up. You retards will literally just ignore any arguments and any evidence, so why bother. I fucking give up.
>this was at the currently half point of the thread

Sorry, sorry, had to have my laugh. Do continue.

>>54854788
Yeah, because that matters. And not the actual arguments I've made. Sure.