Responses to "Fluffy Bunnies?"


-by Irreverend Hugh, KSC

The following is a series of responses to the article "Fluffy Bunnies?" written by a Pagan named Beth. Her article raises some interesting points about what now seems to be an interminable cluster of arguments between various Pagan and Pagan-identified people and those who are identified as Fluffy Bunnies. I include the entire text of the article (which is italicized to keep it distinct from my response) with intersplices of my responses (which are mostly in bold and separated by double lines). I have modified the style and coding of the original article somewhat to fit this simple page design and the rest of this website.

The url for the article is http://www.soulrebels.com/beth/fluffy.html. I will leave my explanations as to why I felt these responses were necessary until the end of this page. Please note that a few of her intrasite links may not work properly on this page. All of the other links should be fine. Any of you who would like to check out her website will find it at http://www.soulrebels.com/beth/pagan.html.

All of the links on this page will open new windows, so you may need to adjust your browser to allow for it.

Note 8/19/05: This page is now updated in accordance with the request of the author of the "Fluffy Bunnies?" article. I have tried to check and fix all the reference links, but some may still not be active or correct. My responses have also been slightly edited to tighten some of them up and to remove unnecessary language. Please send all comments or questions to [tribhis@yahoo.com]. This text, or at least my own responses, can be shared freely so long as you credit it. Please let me know if you link or reference this page. If any of you out there have any articles, or writings of your own, or if you have any links or references pertinent to this topic, please let me know. For an index of related articles CLICK HERE. To see who or what this site is all about, go to the link at the bottom of the page.


Fluffy Bunnies?

A new trend within the Pagan and Wiccan communities - especially on the Internet - is to bash so-called "fluffy bunnies", typically in the most rude and offensive terms possible.

"Fluffy bunnies" are usually defined as those who fit one of the following criteria:
- they persist in believing inaccurate infformation about Wicca;
- they focus on the "light" side of Wicca to the exclusion of the "dark" side;
- they push their beliefs on others and/orr claim persecution constantly;
- they practice in an ostentatious, pretenntious manner (such as calling oneself "Lord"/ "Lady" or wearing eighteen pentacles at once), usually because they are into Wicca for the shock value.

Some of the main Anti-Fluffy-Bunny sites are: Why Wiccans Suck, The Obsidian Mirror, A Wiccan Fatwa, or the Fluffy Bunny essay on Wicca for the Rest of Us.

I agree with many of the criticisms voiced by these folks - for example, dissemination of inacurate information, a "victim" mentality, and pretentiousness are problems in our community. And some of these authors' webpages include many thoughtful, intelligent essays which I appreciate even though I don't necessarily agree with them. However, I still have a number of objections to the "anti-fluffy-bunny" discourse within the pagan community.
While there is nothing much to object to here, I disagree with the author's assertion that "fluffy bashing" is some sort of trend. It can't really be spoken of as a trend, since that word has the connotation of something that is superfluous and shallow. Perhaps a more accurate description would be "backlash." That is what many of us who speak against the fluffy bunny syndrome (a.k.a. "Wicca-lite" among other terms) tend to call it.

In this context of a backlash, we are akin to elders (some of us may or may not actually BE elders) of a culture who deplore its destruction by those who wish to bring it down to the level of the lowest denominator so that it is easily marketable to the palates of those who want spiritual/magical quickfixes.

Before we go on, I must say that I appreciate any objections to the 'anti-fluffy-bunny' discourse. Though any objections to such a discourse are necessarily part of the discourse... and I really mean it. It is not just some semantical fiat.

1. These authors seem to be obsessed with policing the authenticity of Wicca.
That is to say, they frequently berate "fluffy bunnies" for practicing something that is not properly Wicca at all, but rather "some watered-down, feelgood version of anti-Xian nature worship that an author is promoting under the title of Wicca." (from WWS)

I certainly agree that it's problematic that many Wiccans (and Witches, and Pagans) know very little about the history of Wicca. But I think it is ridiculous to claim that Gardner's Wicca is the One True Wicca (for example, WWS describes Gardner's coven as "the first and purest form of the religion of 'Wicca'.") Come on, folks - Gardner made it up! He borrowed whatever the hell he wanted, wherever he could find it. In this context, what meaning does "purity" really have? Borrowing rituals/ practices and blatantly making shit up is a Wiccan tradition!

Now, I'm not advocating borrowing other cultures' practices, although I don't have a problem with making things up (as long as you don't try to claim they're thousands of years old, like Gardner did). But the point is, Wicca is not set in stone. It comes from a mishmash of various sources, and it's been evolving and changing ever since it was invented. We can certainly talk about what Wicca is now, or what it should be now, but historical authenticity is a poor argument for any Wiccan practice.

(For example, the author of WWS refers contemptuously to "fluffy bunnies" not knowing the 161 laws of Wicca, which include such gems as "As a man loveth a woman by mastering her... So the Wicca should love the gods by being mastered by them." Thanks, Gerald.)
While I would certainly agree with the author that Gerald Gardner's Wicca is not the only valid version of Wicca, it is important that we at least acknowledge that he did, in fact, create the foundations of Wicca. Many others immediately after Gardner continued to flesh out Wicca and the various offshoots that can now be included under the rubric of Isaac Bonewits' term "Neo-Pagan Witchcraft."

The author does make an assertion that bothers me, and that is that some of us are trying to police the authenticity of Wicca. She then contrasts this with the idea that Wicca was 'crafted' together by borrowing and 'making up shit,' and that these are Wiccan traditions. While it is true that Wicca was and is a creative practice, that doesn't excuse those willy-nilly sorts who use such creative 'eclecticism' as an excuse to avoid doing any real work or study. Otherwise, anyone who decides to make up shit can legitimately call themselves Wiccan simply because they feel 'witchy' or 'spooky' and wish to impress their non-occult friends.

Chaos Magicians borrow and make shit up all the time too. Does that make them Wiccan? Absolutely not. I tell you one thing however, Chaos Magicians do borrow and steal from any source, but they make sure they know enough about it to get "into it" for the purposes of their magical experiments.

Another thing that bothers me is that much too often Gerald Gardner is maligned and his contributions as the primary founder are denied. This bothers me. Sure, we can all say that the gods called up Wicca, but we still need to acknowledge the visionaries who spliced it all together. The problem I have with many people who claim that they can make any shit up they want to and call it whatever they wish is that they aren't willing to do the work of training and practice that crafting one's own tradition or magical system entails. So to address the article here, I know that Gardner made it all up. But he didn't just sit there and read a bunch of occult texts and paste it together, he actually experimented with things first. He tried them out. What a novel concept! And herein is why many of us seem to be policing the authenticity of Wicca: We actually want some of these fluffy bunnies who claim all sorts of things to practice and actually learn about they call 'Wicca.'

And like it or not, the 161 Laws are part of Wicca's albeit short history. Thus they should at least be studied. I wouldn't suggest anyone actually take those laws seriously, but it is important to be familiar with them as an article of history. Many Gardnerians still follow them. It is important to be fluent with as many Wiccan traditions as possible, including the ones that disagree with your personal version.

2. These essays are vague about what "fluffy" and "watered-down" actually mean.
The lamentation that "fluffy bunny pagans" don't pay any attention to the "dark" side of things is frequently heard from the Anti-Fluffy-Bunny folks, as in this statement that Cunningham's version of the craft is "completely lacking in any recognition of the dark side of nature, life, or the human psyche." What exactly does that mean? Here's a few examples.

WFRU complains that some "fluffy bunnies" believe the God and Goddess are all benevolent. Here it appears that "darkness" has to do with negativity or destruction. Some Christians believe that God is all benevolent, too, and that evil in the world comes from people being out of harmony with God. Would WFRU describe this philosophy as a "fluffy bunny" perspective?

WWS alleges that a "Real Wiccan" is someone who "actually knows something about Gardner's original Wicca, including its dark side." Although it's not completely clear, the author appears to be referring to things such as the Fivefold Kiss or ritual scourging. Here it seems that Wicca's alleged "dark side" has to do with sex. Perhaps we should ask ourselves why we might consider sex to be a "dark" side of Wicca, since sex is considered sacred by Wiccans and other Pagans. (In addition, I refer back to my earlier point that Gardner's original Wicca is not really a source for historical authenticity.)

In another example of hazy logic, WWS also sarcastically urges "fluffy bunnies": "The Horned God looks too scary? Forget Him... Everything aggressive and masculine and dark should be avoided, not revered, right?" Now, I've never heard "aggressive" and "masculine" qualities associated with darkness - in fact, usually the Wiccan paradigm of polarity typically equates them with "light" (while "passive" and "feminine" qualities go with darkness). Whether or not you agree with that set of correspondences, it's the most common one among Wiccans. So again I have to ask: what is "darkness" supposed to mean here?

Personally, I'm not a fan of using terms like "dark" and "black" to describe things that have to do with sex, death, or negativity (more on that here). One reason is that I think they are vague and unhelpful terms, a point which I think is proved by the above examples. I would encourage the Anti-Fluffy-Bunny folks to articulate their concerns in more specific, concrete terms.
I agree that a lot of the anti-fluffy essays are vague about what they mean when they say "watered down." However all of them contain examples of what their authors feel are silliness. I have read a lot of these types of essays (and certainly all the ones linked above). Many essays don't get into long discussions of what they mean by "watered down" simply because they are posted on sites that contain some excellent articles about Wicca specifically or Paganism generally.

Now "Why Wiccans Suck" (WWS above) actually goes into lengthy descriptions of the "watered down" phenomenon. Points that author raises include, the anti-Xtian biases of many who call themselves Wiccan, spurious historical information being adhered to even when it has been roundly debunked by scholars both within and without the Pagan community, and the silliness of people who claim that Wicca is 'make-it-up-as-you-go-along-and-don't-tell-me-I-am-wrong.'

We must remember that Wicca is a religion, and that it does belong to its practitioners, some of them who have been at it for decades now. As I have said above, while people may wish to change or adapt certain things as they see fit, they also need to be educated as to what the hell all the other Wiccan traditions are about...and that means actually studying up on Gerald Gardner and some of the other more well-known co-conspirators.

Another thing, I take issue with is the author's objections to the use of the word "dark." Darkness is essential if there is to be the perception of light in contrast. When many of us speak about the darkness of sex, or certain magical rituals, or even of aspects of divinity, we mean that which is "shadowy" or often repressed. Dark is also wonderful because of its associations with the earth's power, even as it is embodied by us in sexuality, sweat, blood, tears, and laughter. Wicca's duality, or polarism, between dark and light, sun and moon, and other things of that sort is a potent aspect of its ritual and magical system. Of course the definitions are human, but so what. They do work, and they work for a reason. To simply trash the whole thing is another type of "watering down." Even though the conceptions of this duality, or polarity (as a more exact magical term), are human, one would be hard pressed to not find their basic reality of operation in the "natural" world.

Personally, I LIKE the use of the word "dark" to describe those aspects of life that are shadowy, unclear, and sometimes painful. I like my dark deities to be dark and I am very surprised when people tell me that such entities as Hecate or even Diana are really beings of light and are really just as nurturing or happy-go-lucky as say Venus. The author's confusion or unwillingness to see the potency of the word "dark" and its associations reminds me of the New Age contention that "All Is Light." It sounds nice and pretty but it is still untrue. (I mean at some level, we are all light, if we mean "energy." But such terms should never be used out of specific contexts.)

But now let me get into the author's assertions of "hazy logic" and such...
It is not hazy logic to assume that someone's avoidance of inconvenient things like "darkness," which are integral to Wicca, is a symptom of fluffy bunny syndrome. It might not be as concretely detailed as the author would like it to be, but it is apt. Besides all that, many Wiccan writers and teachers have written/talked about these things we include under the term "darkness." It is not for us anti-fluffy-bunny writers to explain such things, unless the discussion warrants it. I disagree with the author's assumption that every criticism must be so thoroughly detailed that every term must be meticulously explained.

3. These essays unfairly target newbies.
Most of these authors will say that they don't target newbies; and of course, it's true that what these authors describe as "fluffy bunny" behavior also occurs among people who've been practicing for years. However, I think it is normal that when people first get interested in Wicca, they go through a period of trying to figure out what the One True Answer is for every question. This may take the form of things like taking one writer's word as gospel, or having "overly ostentatious ceremonial tools" (both cited by WFRU).

In addition, newbies in particular are less likely to know the history and origins of Wicca (a common gripe of the Anti-Fluffy-Bunny folks). Clearly we all need to take responsibility for our own learning process, and for not believing everything we read/hear. Reading in a book that 9 million witches were burned during "The Burning Times" doesn't mean you should take that number at face value. However, I also think we as a community have to take responsibility for the fact that accurate information about the origins of Wicca is only beginning to be widely available, through books such as Ronald Hutton's Triumph of the Moon (and even that is not a book likely to be picked up by a beginner).

Books are now a primary means of entry into the Pagan community, and newcomers to our community will probably view these authors as experts. Many books by authors I otherwise respect (such as Starhawk) give historical information which is either (a) inaccurate or (b) vague but misleading. Perhaps we should hold these authors accountable for their unwillingness to provide accurate information (or to direct readers to a source of accurate information). But it seems understandable to me that a first-time reader of pagan books, who knows very little about medieval history or about witchcraft, might believe that nine million witches were killed in Europe - and they might need to hear otherwise from several sources before they change their minds.

Anti-Fluffy-Bunny folks do attribute some responsibility to Pagan authors. However, these typically target a few specific authors (Silver RavenWolf and Scott Cunningham are frequent targets), and address a wide variety of complaints such as poor writing, poor ethics, and rituals or theologies which are seen to be "watered-down." Here's an idea: how about a letter-writing campaign demanding that authors replace inaccurate historical information in their books (and cite their sources)? This would be a pro-active solution, and could be directed toward all sorts of authors, even those we don't disagree with on other grounds.

Several of these authors say their problem is not with people who have inaccurate information, but with those who refuse to reconsider the accuracy of their information when given new evidence. For these cases, I refer you to reason #5 below.
Personal segue of relevance:
I was lucky enough when I was introduced to Wicca specifically, and to Paganism in general, to have the benefit of access to different sources and of being able to talk to people who had various opinions and practices. The first books I ever read about what I was getting into were Drawing Down the Moon (required reading for me actually) and Never Again The Burning Times: Paganism Revived. I never even allowed myself to read or own any other books about it until years later. I didn't need to read about it because it was a part of my life...something I was doing. So as a 'newbie,' I didn't go through a "fluffy" period. (I also had the benefit of being active in so-called occult activities for some time before my introduction to Wicca.) Now don't get me wrong, I was a newbie and did some pretty stupid and embarrassing things. I also had some ideas that I now laugh myself to pieces about. But I did learn from it. Since that time, I have grown in many different directions and I no longer use the word Wicca, even if it is a nearly accurate description of the sort of Paganism I practice. I call what I do Neo-Pagan Witchcraft since it is more precise for me and because I think the word Witchcraft displays an accurate emphasis on my magical practices.

Now, I understand that many people are introduced to Paganism and Wicca through books and/or websites. I have no problem with this. What I do take issue with is the fact that many people rely on books too much to fill in all the gaps that they are either too afraid or too lazy to learn on their own through practice. Also, a lot of fluffy bunny types simply read books and get vicarious experiences of Wicca/Witchcraft/Paganism/What-Have-You and go no further. I do blame them for this intellectual and spiritual laziness, since Wicca and all of its Neo-Pagan Witchcraft variants are participatory. Every individual is called to DO SOMETHING, to learn for themselves, to experience the divine/sacred/ultimate for themselves. This vicarious knowledge picked up from books, many of them spurious and inaccurate, is, I admit, a symptom of the broader mainstream culture where everything is brought to people with the maximum convenience. But I don't excuse anyone from the hard work and dedication necessary to actually learn and practice for themselves.

We are a reasonably educated society, at least for most of us. Thus, there really is no excuse for the fact that someone is naive enough to believe what s/he reads at face value. The reason people do so is out of laziness. People want their answers and insights pre-fabricated and ready made. They want easily digestible wisdom. I am sorry, but it doesn't work that way. This fact must be pointed out to the fluffy bunnies, even if it makes them angry. Sometimes the truth hurts. But it is still the truth.

Let me again speak from my own circumstances:
Many of today's self-styled Wiccans would be surprised at the kind of things I had to study, reflect, and comment on as part of my training discipline. A lot of the material had nothing to do with magic or the so-called "witchy" things. I also never felt the urge to declare my new spiritual practices to everyone around me. I really don't care if someone accepts me or not, so I don't get caught up in the game of providing others with excuses to either hate or like me.

I do feel it necessary to hold certain authors responsible for their inaccuracies. But their readership needs to be dealt with too. Some of the authors write some damned good information on certain concepts of Wicca and its relatives, but so many books are simply repeats of each other in some pseudo-beginner fashion. Also, many of these books have absolutely horrible magical ideas. (I have touched upon this in other places.) Another thing about some of them is their spurious smorgasbord-of-the-gods treatment of deities. Some of them, to be sure, mention that it is best for people who wish to invoke deities to get to know them first. But many of them avoid such real-world theological concerns such as divine ecstasy, possession, and relationships. If books are going to discuss invoking deities and such, they had better include examples.

4. Harassment and discrimination against modern Witches do occur.
Now, far be it from me to promote a victim mentality. After all, we (as Witches) are not a minority which has historically been persecuted systematically and brutally as have African-Americans, Native Americans, or gays and lesbians (to name a few). In addition, unlike the above-named groups, almost all of us made a choice to become Witches, and we all could choose to stop being Witches at any time.

However, people should not be pushed around or called devil worshippers for wearing pentacles (as in Obsidian's essay on persecution). Obsidian chooses to define this as not being real harassment because the subject of the essay was asking for trouble by wearing showy clothing and ostentatious jewelry. Sure, maybe the kid in question was being kind of pretentious. I might not describe this as persecution either, since it wasn't systematic and directed against a group. But that doesn't mean it's okay for people to beat you up based on your religion or your style of dress.

Obsidian's proposed solution is to dress in a way that conforms to the most popular local style if you don't want others to know you're a Witch. I'll leave it up to you readers to decide whether you think that is an effective solution to the problem of harassment.
Good for the author! The last thing we do need is some victim mentality which claims for ourselves people who never even would have considered themselves Pagans, let alone Wiccans, to begin with. (Of whom do I speak? The victims of the Great European Witch Hunts, of course.) As to the kid with the jewelry, perhaps it's more an issue of the way people treat each other these days than an issue of religious bigotry and/or persecution. I mean, some people are simply assholes to one another, and it wouldn't matter what you are wearing if someone wanted to start trouble with you.

As to pentacles, I know why people are wearing them. And I think they should be able to. But we DO HAVE TO ADMIT that there is going to be a bit of a struggle before the rest of society becomes comfortable with the idea. How can anyone be surprised about this? Especially considering the fact that the pentacle IS associated with nefarious and/or satanic activities since Hollywood films started using them in their depictions of evil devil-worshipping occultists. This is not accurate as we all know that the pentagram design had nothing to do with that until the creation of Modern Satanism. However, people BE AWARE of what other people may think about the symbols you choose to display.

While it is a given that there is some discrimination towards Pagans, especially the Wiccans (the whole "Witch" thing being the poignant example), many of the people complaining the loudest about persecution then turn around and discriminate against others in the very ways such suckers whine about. I have been shunned by self-identified Wiccans for practicing Chaos Magic. One time I was told flat out that Chaos Magic was evil and when I asked this person why they thought that way, all they could say was that it made them feel weird. They couldn't actually tell me anything about Chaos Magic because they were ignorant of it. When I tried to explain the Chaos approach, they refused to listen to me. They just kept saying that I should beware of it. (I think that many people dislike Chaos Magic because it works..."My Gods! It means we actually have to prove magic works! Bad! Bad!" But this is not the time for such a digression. I refer those interested in my defense of Chaos Magic to go here and here.) I also have problems with the Christian bashing that many of the self-professed persecuted Pagans express. That shit makes me feel a lot of pity. Being anti-Christian is not the way to go about it, even if you do have some valid criticisms to make. I have heard Pagans make some derogatory remarks about Buddhists as well, and this gets me, because Buddhism is the other 'faith' in my life, as integral to who I am as my Witchcraft practices.

Now Obsidian's idea about looking to blend in has a lot of merit, especially when you consider the fact that there is no "official Wiccan garb," no matter what Laurie Cabot says. If you are practicing your religion happily and wholeheartedly, you need not wear it on your sleeve or on your face or finger or whatever part on which you wear whatever it is that you wear. I know that blending in doesn't solve the long-term social problem of harassment and discrimination, but it is a useful practice that has immediate benefits. To be ignorant of local styles and customs of dress is foolish, and until the society can be changed to be more open and tolerant of differences, this is how it is. There is no need for stupidly heroic stands. The "real" you can wait until you either move from an intolerant area, or until you realize that it really is not that important to show everyone around you what religion you practice. Hell, I wore a pentacle openly (in social life, not at work) for about two years, as a sort of experiment. Most people around where I live just assumed I was Jewish (obviously they couldn't count the points). A few people asked if I was a Satanist. Others just thought I was an occultist. Strangely, the people at a local Buddhist center were the ones who actually knew what it meant. I stopped wearing it openly, not because of discrimination, but because I was sick and tired of being identified with the more fluffy bunny Wicca-lite adherents. Plus, I just felt like having it against my skin under my shirt. (I still wear it openly at Pagan gatherings, or places where it won't attract much attention.) And anyway, I really don't want people who don't know me well, but yet who know what I look like, to know I am a Witch. (Whatever happened to "To Be Silent?")

Now, I do know of some people and have friends who have gone through some discrimination for their religious practices and/or faith. I don't take issue with that. People do have the right to practice whatever religion they wish. Most of the people I know who have gone through discrimination have been from the Santeria faith, which is sadly misunderstood and maligned even by many Neo-Pagans. What I take issue with is the fact that some fluffy bunny types consider it persecution and/or discrimination when some of us point out their various inaccuracies and/or misunderstandings about Wicca and/or other forms of Paganism. I even heard one fluffy bunny attack other Pagans who challenged the "Burning Times" myth, going so far as to say that not agreeing with the fact that there were actual Pagan Witches killed in the Great Witch Hunts, was tantamount to being a persecutor of his "Wiccan" faith. People, this type of illogic is NOT promising.

Also, we must accept and be aware that there are a lot of misunderstandings and slanders about us Pagans. We can counter the slander, as we should. But there is not a damn thing in the world we can do to make people of other faiths like Christianity understand us. And if they do not understand us, or our religion(s), that is still not the same as persecution. Telling the local pastor of your family's church that you are now Wiccan and that it is the Old Religion and that Christianity is wrong, is not the best way of going about it. One: Why say anything at all unless you have to? Two: Christianity as an institution has committed some wrongs, but the faith or the insights its adherents may gain are no less wrong than any other religion. Three: Wicca is not the Old Religion, never mind what author you have read who claimed otherwise. Four: Remaining silent unless you know your words might actually be listened to is a good approach. None of you want Christians to knock on your door on Saturday morning to talk to you about their faith in Jesus. Likewise, respect other people too. Some people are simply NOT INTERESTED in your discovery of Paganism or Wicca.

5. Finally - and perhaps most importantly - this type of attack is not an effective tactic, if the goal is to change readers' minds.
Shock tactics do get attention. Perhaps a few people's minds will be changed by being called a pathetic, stupid moron.* But to most people, being called names feels like a personal attack, and the normal response to a personal attack is to become defensive and respond with a counterattack.

When I suggested this on the guestbook of one of these sites, someone (not the site owner) emailed me to explain that when people are insulted, their first response is shock and anger; however, then, when they begin to defend themselves, they are forced to articulate their position, and this causes them to potentially re-think their ideas. This may be true for some people, but in my experience, when most people become defensive, their mindset becomes more rigid and they are less likely to modify their opinion.

Of course, polite and reasonable discussion and debate will not always change minds either. But in my experience it is significantly more effective than rudeness, sarcasm, or name-calling.

I also believe that civility counts for something. Believe it or not, debate can take place without insults and rude language. The Internet is not always the best place for this, since misunderstandings occur easily over electronic media, but it is possible. Let's not bring the debate down to the lowest common denominator.

*An example of this type of insult: Obsidian's essay Morons in the Craft describes how a Pagan author's "pasty haggard face has been permanently stained brown from all the asses he's kissed to publish his mediocre books." This essay is full of examples of ridiculously rude name-calling, such as calling another Pagan author an "Australian whore d'oeuvres." Not all Anti-Fluffy-Bunny folks are as rude as Obsidian, but they do tend to use sarcastic and insulting language to make their points.
Heh. Some writers are just venting their anger. Obsidian admits to that much on his site. What does a "pissed off Pagan" mean? Nicety and polite speech? No. Plus, I have also seen fluffy bunny types hurl some nasty insults at people who asked them simple questions about how they came to know what they know, or when their magical claims were called into question. To each her own. Some people are more rude than others. And some fluffy bunnies need to hear the anger from many of us in an unmitigated version. Insults also have a rich history in linguistic tradition and I find many of them to be funny. If someone is acting stupidly, what should we say about it? I know that the common pseudo-wisdom says that calling them "stupid" wouldn't be constructive...but then what should we call them? Less-than-intelligent? If someone is broke, should I call them less-than-rich? Let's face it, insults tend to wake us up to the situation.

I am not justifying using such language. I am simply explaining why it is used. Also, we need keep in mind, that many people write anti-fluffy-bunny essays, not to change fluffy minds, but to basically defend against the reduction of Wicca to an "anything-so-long-as-I-feel-like-it" spiritual smorgasbord. Fluffy bunnies are actually more of a threat to Paganism then any other group of people because no one in the mainstream religions is going to take any Pagan struggles for religious equality seriously if all they see are people calling themselves Pagans when what they really are is just confused and unwilling to grow up.


Constructive Next Steps

Here are my suggestions for the Anti-Fluffy-Bunny folks to make their pages less offensive and more helpful. (A few of these are already happening on these author's websites, but I would like to see them replace the bile.)

1. Drop the name-calling.

2. Write an educational page about Wiccan history, and do your best to promote it so it's widely read.

3. Cite your sources, all the time.

4. Start a letter-writing campaign to target inaccuracies in Wiccan publications (as described in #3 of the previous list).

5. Write a page called "Ways My Community Can Improve Itself" - without using sarcastic or demeaning language. Offer constructive suggestions for things individuals can do to help the community.

6. If, like many authors of these websites, you are no longer a Wiccan, write a respectful description of the reasons for your choices - without using sarcastic or demeaning language. (Some authors of these websites have already done this.)

7. Write a satire that's as funny and thought-provoking (yet without attacking individuals or groups) as Lady Pixie Moondrip's Guide to Craft Names, and circulate it widely.

8. Write a page called "Common Misconceptions Held by Wiccans" - without using sarcastic or demeaning language. (Heck, maybe I'll try this one myself.)

9. In the same vein, write a quiz called "Test Yourself on Wiccan History" - without using sarcastic or demeanning language, and with links to more information.

Take Me Back to Beth's Pagan Stuff

These are good suggestions, but perhaps I don't want to help anymore. I myself have actually written something similar to this author's suggestion #8 called Witchcraft Heresies if that helps. I have kept my language edgy and on the more rude side because the tone of the essay is one of mirth, though I don't believe many people who get offended will find anything funny. Too often people read things without paying attention to anything but the keywords. I wrote it specifically to weed out those sorts of sloppy readers. I really would rather have more critical readers read its entirety. I don't care about the others, since their lack of reading comprehension skills precludes that they would have any potential to grow at this time.

I also disagree with the author's suggestion that we write pages on Wiccan history. Many brilliant researchers and writers have already done so. Let's keep the redundancy down a bit and simply promote good sources of information that are already out there. (Such as Isaac Bonewits' website at www.neopagan.net, the Wicca for the Rest of Us site referenced in Beth's article above, and places like Daven's Journal. Obviously there are quite a number of good books that can be recommended too, but that list will have to wait for another page and another time. [In the several months since I first wrote this response, I have changed my mind somewhat. It has become more important for me to write articles detailing or defining certain aspects of Wicca and the Broader Neo-Pagan Witchcraft family of traditions. Much of that work has been compiled into an "article" for reference called Neo-Pagan Witchcraft / Wicca 101 Glossary, which up to now has only been shared among some friends, fellow practitioners, and some other Pagans I know from online.]

Overall, however, these are good suggestions. Something to think about for those who want to take a more diplomatic approach. As for myself, I have seen diplomacy and politeness fail because of stupidity and that pisses me off. So, I will rant when I feel the need to but I also recognize the need for being careful about the ranting and complaining. I have decided for myself that a potential fluffy-bunny must prove themselves to be stupid and narrowminded for some time before I include them in the category.

Conclusion


Why can't we all just get along? I doubt we ever will need to, since confrontation and argument are valid ways of solving problems. I do not feel I have to get along with and accept the fluffy bunnies who are spitting on, misrepresenting, and denigrating Wicca. They need to get their shit together, and I am going to keep pointing that out whenever I am confronted by them because they feel that my speaking from experience and/or knowledge is somehow "persecuting" them. Thankfully, it won't be that often because I have adopted a new policy of dealing with fluffy bunnies when I meet them in person, I laugh at them to pieces.

As to any webpages and other writings, I suspect my own reasons are for my own catharsis...letting it all out so I can get on with other things. Blowing off steam is a valid exercise and should never be hushed down or belittled. You must remember that we anti-fluffy-bunny writers do not usually see ourselves as instigators or provokers of arguments, even if those are desired outcomes. We tend to see ourselves as moved to write out of a sense of being provoked. So tread carefully around us. Many of us have been doing this Wicca/Witchcraft/Paganism/What-Have-You for some time now and we are not going to sit there and accept the fact that hard earned insights and knowledge can be replaced with easily packaged Wicca-lite/101 repeats.

Just saying.

Note: This page is published and hosted by the Discordians for Softer Sandpaper Society - Purple Monkey Mafia.
Interested people should click on the link. [Page updated on August 19th, 2005]