Talk:Wicca

	This Paganism related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Origins

Given that there is no evidence that that provides concrete proof of it's existence before the 20th century, it is generally regarded by FOOLISH MORTALS to be almost certainly fabricated by Gerald Gardner, ^{— Unsigned, by: 86.43.183.113 / talk / contribs} 19:04, 27 November 2009‎ (UTC)

Not So Much

Yes, modern Wicca came about in the 1950s. I'm not going to claim it has ancient roots.

But it isn't a "make it up as you go along" religion or a "pick and choose" religion. It has gotten watered down by many who come to it from that point of view, I admit. That is why there is now a phenomena called "Traditional Wicca" to keep a core belief system and practice intact. And the traditionalist don't very much care for the Fluffy-Bunny New-Age Wiccans. | Harvestdancer over at Wikipedia

This is why I want to write an article on fluffbunnies/fluff-paganism/sparkly-wicca/whatever you call it. Because while Wicca itself came about relatively recently, it's still a 'thing,' a set of beliefs or a tradition one can follow. Anything that pretends to be part of that tradition, yet really exists to take advantage of people who want to feel better (a la New Age) and get money/form a consumer culture around said set of beliefs is worthy of coverage here. I just haven't found anyone else here that knows enough about fluffbunnies (I was involved with some in high school, preserve me, and I remember the antics) to write the article. Any takers? I have one other friend who knows a lot about it, but she's a friendly lurker here at best. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{longissimus non legeri} 19:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't take it on without ending every other sentence with "just like Scientology!". ^sshole 19:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Fluffbunny crap is less organized, more like horoscopes-and-star-signs in the way it gets people... and mostly kids. Very kids. Especially tweenagers and early teenagers. You know, looking for easy identity that promises easy life improvement, etc. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{longissimus non legeri} 20:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, Gerald Gardner made it up as he went along, as did his successors such as Alex Sanders. The problem is that, despite its pseudo-history, Wicca is so relatively young and disorganized (there's already an overhwelming number of schisms) that it makes it difficult to define what a "Wiccan" officially is. The Gardnerian tradition is more clearly established than other, more eclectic branches; however, calling Garnerian-ism the original version of Wicca is debatable, as Gardner himself did not use that term as a proper name for his religion. (He used the term "wica" with one C as a Ye Olde Englishe-sounding synonym for witch.) I believe it was Gardner's rival, Robert Cochrane, who first used the term "Wicca" with two Cs in the sense that we know it today. ^{— Unsigned, by: 172.4.84.137 / talk}

FluffBunnies

We need a page on this in general. Fluff bunnies infest Wicca, neopaganism, and pretty much anything that can reasonably incorporate getting tubes of sparkles from a craft store and making a circle out of them to summon invisible 'fairies' to tell you you're pretty or other such garbage. Fluffbunny stuff has a serious overlap with adolescence/kid-targeted woo and is often marketed primarily at teenagers when their identities are full of crap and they just want some affirmation. It draws on pop culture to promise a pretty image while ignoring the ideas it appropriates come from actual belief systems. It steals goofy concepts from New Age philosophies and religions, and annoys everybody. We need to make this an actual page, not scattered statements on it on a handful of pages; kids are scammed with this stuff. and while it's written off as a 'phase,' nobody should be profiteering on adolescents and their body image, their social anxiety, their need for solutions and guidance, or other cultural problems that are most definitely not solved by Silva Ravenwolf. In fact, being told that you're entitled to be special and you don't need help from the mundanes who 'just don't understand' can be severely damaging to kids that actually do need counseling and such.±KnightOfTL;DR^{critical thinking is the key to success!} 02:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Do we have any former fluffbunnies on RationalWiki? Or is there any research? I've done what I can for the more orthodox British traditions (Gardnerian and Alexandrian) - but you'd have to pay me to e.g. open a book by Silver Ravenwolf. Neonchameleon (talk) 09:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not nor have I been a fluffbunny, but I've dealt with a few of them over the years in various Neopagan traditions. What specific sorts of things are you looking to poke at? I can think of lots of them in regards to Wicca. Especially when it comes to those who found it by way of Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Given that all of wika seems to be an ongoing individualistic party of "believe what you like" syncretism, the idea that there are some ideas which are too odd or simplistic for this apparently chaotic belief system is interesting. I've never heard of fluffbunnys before, but if they've got ideas which are too weirdly of base to be incorporated in this super-inclusive inane semi-religion then I think a separate section would be, .... ummmmm ...., illustrative.--Weirdstuff (talk) 16:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

If they are going for a super-inclusive 'believe what you like' inane semi-religion then they probably are fluffbunnies/'Wanna-Blessed-bes'. And they probably have as much to do with Christianity as they do with the Mystery religions that are either Alexandrian or Gardnerian Wicca, or even Janet Farrar's Reformed Alexandrian Wicca (much as she hates the term) that she learnt at least as much from Doreen Valiente as Alex Sanders. As for what we want, sources, practices, how you can tell them. I'm not even sure where to begin tbh. Breadcrumbs away from fluffbunniness is one approach, mockery is another and pointing out how it isn't part of Traditional Wicca Neonchameleon (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

So a section on fluffbunnies would be good then? As far as I can tell from this page they are "Neo-pagans with strange beliefs". So a section explaining how they are different from other neo-pagans would at least be entertaining.- Weirdstuff (talk) 11:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Definitely. The main difference I'm aware of is most neo-pagans at least try to stick to some pattern in what they believe. Wicca in specific has source texts and initiations. Neonchameleon (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Another thing typical of fluffbunnies is that the material targeted at them is very commercial and new-agey in nature. It is sold with a lot of promises often to young people (I have friends who are former fluff, best friend included; she still has books) but no real reward. It no-true-scotsmans people who perform practices that individual authors don't like, and basically sells a power fantasy. Mostly to adolescents, who are at times of their lives where they feel very little control, but some older people end up going along with it all, too. There are also a lot of things targeted at kids from christian households so they can get into the movement but hide their involvement, such as 'angel worship' and other pseudo-pagan-???? things. They are sometimes known as 'one-book-wonders' who read only one intro text by Silva Ravenwolf or somebody and think they are now an amazing and powerful witch who can do anything... but a common criticism of that label is that older and more 'experienced' practitioners could just be said to be 'twenty-book wonders,' etc. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{free guybrush threepwood! no new taxes! down with porcelain!} 16:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Stub created with a couple of lines. Needs more - but Fluff Bunny Wicca is a whole subculture so far as I can tell and I don't know enough. I've also split out the Dianic Wicca section although that still needs some work. Neonchameleon (talk) 01:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Dianic Wicca

In edit notes Reckless Noise Symphony suggests that Zsuzsanna Budapest's Dianic Wicca (occasionally called Lesbian Separatist Wicca) deserves its own page. I'd agree but know very little about it. Anyone know more? Neonchameleon (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Apparently google and Wiki do. I've made a page - although still consider it a stub.Neonchameleon (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Beliefs section

It's inaccurate, factually. It assumes "rede" means law. It does not. [1] It is just archaic language which was common for Gardner and the others to use. This "rede" misconception has been used on other pages. It also assumes the wrong thing about Wicca. Gardner originally called it Wica or the Wica, which is a term for a male witch and is of Old English derivation.

ChaoticBlue (talk) 04:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)