Looks like the little angel is going to give me an hour of freetime this morning, so I thought I’d share some thoughts before we’re off to the races.
My niece’s mother is an avid reader; she’s one of those people who I think is wasted in the corporate world, such a fine and curious mind has she. So in quiet spells, I’ve been doing a little review of her library, and one of her most recent shopping sprees at the bookstore resulted in a bevy of books on religion, a subject dear to my heart.

Without waxing all theoretical, one thing that has always fascinated me about religions is the way in which so many posit truly incredible (as in, unbelievable to a logical mind) stories about gods who give birth. Now, I suppose one of the benefits of being a god is that you can create whatever you want with whatever supernatural parts of yourself you have. Godlike powers are, well, godlike. But I can think of, even on only half a cup of coffee, dozens of myths in which a primal or major male deity is posited to create supernatural offspring all by himself. Sometimes, such divine creations are understood to be all-encompassing; Ymir creates the world in Norse myth much like the Hebrew god creates the universe; divine will alone brings all into being. Other times, male gods create offspring gods out of pique or spite, Zeus “births” two of the major Greek gods by creatively using his body parts. Athena even goes on in later myth to brag about how she is born of no female, and this is understood to add to her authority. The Mesopotamian pantheon that I’ve studied formally contains less of this male-only fecundity; most of the major gods are paired and mate with female equivalents. But there are plenty of examples from almost every religion, right up to our own modern day father of buddy Christ, who manages to beget his own son without dirtying himself with The Act.

Skipping over several years worth of graduate study, I’ve always been fascinated with the question of why such narratives are so popular. The scholar in me rejects the “feminist” interpretations of Gimbutas and Bachofen, although their work is highly engaging I understand the archaeological and philological flaws which make those authors of less academic value. But I think it’s still a valid point to note that one of the prime functions of religion seems to be to posit that the “highest” form of creation is the one in which a divine male figure assumes agency over what is understood to be a supremely female act. Given that all religious belief and narrative springs from the human mind, and very frequently the male human mind, I think this pattern is very interesting and telling.

I’m not going to be a mother, but I’ve done a goodly amount of mothering now, helping out the birth mothers of my niece and nephew for long stretches of time. I really enjoy it; babies can cry and spit and shit and I don’t bat an eye. Nor do I mind the irregular hours, I’ve never been a regular hours kind of gal and I find the quiet moments of play or nursing to the rising sun or gibbous moon pleasant. While I suppose I’d be less sanguine about the burdens of motherhood if I had to do it full time for the next 18 years, it occurs to me that there is an argument to be made for the “nonreproductive/gay gene” in an evolutionary sense. If this were five thousand years ago and my family were part of a wandering tribal unit eking out a hand to mouth living, my services would have enormous value to the eventual success of my sisters’ children.

Anyway, getting back to the male creator god theme, I wonder if some of the human (male) urge to create reproductive male gods comes from a desire on the part of male authors to be closer to the reproductive process. I don’t like stereotypes that suggest men can’t be good parents or fail to fully connect to babies, but it’s true that the fathers I know often seem, well, a little uncomfortable with various parts of the child rearing process. In ancient times, I suppose the division of labor was even more pronounced, and ingrained into cultures such that no “respectable” male would’ve been a regular member of the child rearing collective, however formed. Certainly anthropology teaches us that there is great diversity in human culture with respect to how children are raised, but I don’t think one can argue that anything other than a minority of cultures construct a dominant male role with respect to infants and young children. So I’m sitting here imagining shamans and priests of the oldest cultures, sitting around the fire watching a gaggle of women coo and dandle babies, wondering “what that’s all about,” and coming up with some creative stories about male gods giving birth the better to feel connected to the process of making and caring for life.

I really can’t believe she’s sleeping in this late, so I’m going to go make the formula and get the play area ready for another day of learning to crawl liberally. Parting shot- spending time with my niece is filling me with all these warm and protective feelings, reminding me again that if Foley had pulled that shit to any of my young relations, he’d be hanging from a tree by his balls right now. The Republicans can spin all they want, no decent parent can ever excuse him.