(Sonia Johnson, Going Out Of Our Minds: The Metaphysics of Liberation, pg 267.)

"Addictive systems have been properly described as societies that are either preparing for war or recovering from war. Such societies elevate the values of destruction adn violence over values of nurturing and peace. We have only to look at what our society spends on defense to see where it's values lie, since the amount of money this society spends on something is a measure of it's worth in that society.
The amount spent on weapons every minute could feed two thousand malnurished children for a year, while the price of one military tank could provide classrooms for thirty thousand students."

( Christiane Northrup, M.D., Women's Bodies, Women's Wisdom, pg.8)

A female- or wyman-based society would be different.

I'm not sure about the political Feminist movement, which appears to be dominated by educated North American middle-class women. many of these women have been somewhat preoccupied with their place in business; getting as much power and money as their male counterparts, which means they have a vested interest in the present structure. Though this is a small minority of all the women in the world, it is the most vocal and visible minority, with disproportinate clout.

quote:

---

What if all the women in the world went on strike against any and all actions and policies that harm the children?

---

Of course I want to protect children, but on the same level as I would want to protect any other human being who is smalller, weaker or less powerful than others.

Johnson says:

quote:

---

Feminism is the articulation of the ancient, underground culture and philosophy based on the values that patriarchy has labeled 'womanly' but which are necessary for full humanity.

---

Doesn't anyone see the problem with this statement? It describes feminism as picking up where the patriarchy leaves off. The patriarchy proscribes certain values as "womanly" and feminism says: "Right as usual, patriarchy! We're a bunch of non-violent, co-operative nurturers just like you say, so we're going to form a whole movement around that and play it to the hilt. Thanks for defining us, patriarchy, what would we every do without you to tell us who we are?"

I reject the essentialist idea that woman are inherantly nurturing, co-operative, nature-loving, etc. To me it's as offensive as saying all gay men are obsessed by show-tunes and interior design. And I think it's particularly dangerous, as lagatta points out above, to depict women as the naturally-ordained protectors and defenders of children. Haven't we gotten past that particular old chestnut *yet*?

quote:

---

I see another problem with it: "essentialism" again. Why do we assume that women necessarily have some kind of special bond with children? Sure, of course women who are parents go through pregnancy and childbirth, but I know plenty of dads who care just as much about their children, and many women, myself included, who have never wanted any part of motherhood.

---

I agree with you there, lagatta. However, it could be that nonesuch wasn't assuming that women are more concerned about children's issues because it is part of their inherent nature. I have often seen children as a women's issue not because we are hardwired that way, but because centuries of socialization have placed the responsibility of children mostly on women - and most of the responsibility for children still rests on women.

quote:

---

The problem is getting all the women to agree about what is and isn't harmful to children.

---

We could probably agree that it's bad for children to be blown to pieces. Start there. Then we might agree that starvation does them no good. Deal with that. Then move on to more contentious issues, such as whether sleeping in a tarpaper shack with rats and eating off the dump is good or bad for them.

quote:

---

Why do we assume that women necessarily have some kind of special bond with children?

---

We don't have to. It was merely a suggestion for a possible bottom line on which we could build concensus. The suggestion was grounded on the assumption that women generally care about the conditions under which a society raises its next generation. However,

quote:

---

I would want to protect any other human being who is smalller, weaker or less powerful than others.

---

And if we can't even get that far in agreement among ourselves, we sure as hell can't get anywhere with the rest of society. If that is truly the case, i revoke my optimistic statement.

[ June 16, 2002: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

Oh ya guys don't care about kids well niether do I. Oh ya patriarchial culture views money above humanist issues well so do I.

Give me a friggin break.

Can't we move beyond that and accept that women do still bear children. If you don't want to that is certainly your choice, however, since we do have future generations to think of can we not do so in a way that is empowering to men,children and yes holy crap to women too.

Can we not see a society were the mind/body connection is recognized, where the importance of child care is recognized, where the importance of the many hours of unlogged, unpaid labour is recognized.

quote:

---

Doesn't anyone see the problem with this statement? It describes feminism as picking up where the patriarchy leaves off. The patriarchy proscribes certain values as "womanly" and feminism says: "Right as usual, patriarchy! We're a bunch of non-violent, co-operative nurturers just like you say, so we're going to form a whole movement around that and play it to the hilt. Thanks for defining us, patriarchy, what would we every do without you to tell us who we are?"

---

But Relyc if we are in a rush to deny our feminine and see it as somehow lesser than, if we are in a rush to subscribe to the "male" culture as somehow the standard by which are counted are we not also allowing patriarchy to define us?

I believe in my original post I mentioned many things like caring for the sick and elderly that falls mainly to women.

Like volunteer work which falls mainly to women.

Like housework which falls mainly to women.

It is the nurturing, the caring, the believing, the supporting, the mentoring that is the fabric of a society. Without these things the more glamourous high profile aspects would be unable to continue.

quote:

---

Rather like a steep cliff, the trees the weeds the flowers look beautiful, but it is the unseen network of roots the binds the earth
together and prevents it from eroding.

---

Saying you hit the nail on the head is an understatement Emamma!

I have to say that any system that does not include and embrace both genders cannot be considered successful. The brand of feminism that negates the contribution of men because they are men -- for their being instead of their actions -- is not something that I wish to be a part of.

On the other hand, we have a long way to go before the contributions of women are accepted as valid by the mainstream.

quote:

---

Doesn't anyone see the problem with this statement? It describes feminism as picking up where the patriarchy leaves off. The patriarchy proscribes certain values as "womanly" and feminism says: "Right as usual, patriarchy! We're a bunch of non-violent, co-operative nurturers just like you say, so we're going to form a whole movement around that and play it to the hilt. Thanks for defining us, patriarchy, what would we every do without you to
tell us who we are?"

---

quote:

---

But Relyc if we are in a rush to deny our feminine and see it as somehow lesser than, if we are in a rush to subscribe to the "male" culture as somehow the standard by which are counted are we not also allowing patriarchy to define us?

---

earthmum, my problem is with your acceptance that there are objective 'male' and 'female' values--and that these are naturally-ordained as opposed to socially constructed by an inherently sexist culture.

quote:

---

earthmum, my problem is with your acceptance that there are objective 'male' and 'female' values--and that these are naturally-ordained as opposed to socially constructed by an inherently sexist culture

---

Recognizing the differences between men and women isn't sexist, denigrating those differences is. In the case of this society (and most), those traits associated largely - though not exclusively - with women have been denigrated when the male dominates political, economic and social life. Since that's usually been the case, it's difficult to say how the traits largely associated with, but not the exclusive to, men would be regarded by women if they were dominant. Maybe in a matriarchal society men's lives would become as narrow and circumscribed as women's have so often been throughout history.

quote:

---

earthmum, my problem is with your acceptance that there are objective 'male' and 'female' values--and that these are naturally-ordained as opposed to socially constructed by an inherently sexist culture.

---

Quibble: My problem with the 'social construct' theory of anything is that, if didn't come from nature, where did society get the idea for a construct?
Doesn't 'inherent' mean "existing in something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality or attribute"?

If males and females were ever equal, how, when and why did they become unequal? How, when and why did society become sexist?
If males were not dominant to begin with, females must have consented to their own subjugation at some time, for some reason.

[ June 17, 2002: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

quote:

---

But we do have separately assigned biological roles, and while those roles may not always be aligned with our sexual
orientation or our choices as individuals, nevertheless they shouldn't be entirely discounted in the exercise of free will.

---

But wait--why not exactly? What do our sex organs have to do with our free will? And what about people born with no sex organs or 'abnormal' sex organs or hermaphrodites? If we 'shouldn't discount' our 'assigned biological roles' then what do we do with these people, who apparently lack 'assigned biological roles'? Human biology, and hence sexuality, is much more fluid
than man/woman. I was just reading a book about how female atheletes in the 60's were routinely subject to 'gender tests' to determine if they were really women (because of course we all know that athleticism isn't a 'naturally' female trait--that is to say that back then physical weakness was considered one of women's inherent biological 'roles.') So! What happens but one day during one of these supremely offensive tests, one of the women flunked. She was found to have a condition called androgen insensitivity which made her infertile--she lacked a uterus. Otherwise this woman had a normally proportioned woman's body. Nonetheless, she was kicked off the team, stigmatized and ostraciszed for being an 'imposter.'

All that awful stuff aside, a doctor cited in the book commented: "There exists no simple laboratory test that decides gender. The difference between male and female is not black and white. It is a biologic continuum. Any dividing line is a matter of context."

Friends, I just want to stress that I'm not trying to be difficult or muddy the waters of this issue. I am genuinely skeptical of the idea of naturally-ordained sex roles and behaviors. I think it's a dangerous idea--the kind of thing that excludes people and keeps them down. It's been causing almost as much shit in our lives as religion has over the centuries and I say it's time to get rid of it.

Gotta run, gals, although I'd like to get to nonesuch's comments too. Perhaps there will be time tomorrow.

quote:

---

Can't we move beyond that and accept that women do still bear children. If you don't want to that is certainly your choice, however, since we do have future generations to think of can we not do so in a way that is empowering to men,children and yes holy crap to women too.

Can we not see a society were the mind/body connection is recognized, where the importance of child care is recognized, where the importance of the many hours of unlogged, unpaid labour is recognized.

---

I believe that the human species is the only one that consistently kills it's own kind. As we all know we are very fond of wars. For the most part men make up the arm forces. Big breakthrough women are now joining the 'Traditionally' male domain.

Have we lost our bloody marbles with this feminist bit? Is this equality and now we will be respected because we can shoot a gun? Gimme a break.

As feminists we should be taking the guns away and taking the power away from the men and the few women who are fucking up.

quote:

---

Have we lost our bloody marbles with this feminist bit? Is this equality and now we will be respected because we can shoot a gun? Gimme a break.

---

Clersal, where are you getting this?

_{This would create a subscript}

As usual I think I agree with your sentiments earthmom, but I'd like you to expand on them a bit.

I recognize the fact that it is usually women who are in care-giving roles, whether it's caring for the elderly, children, the home, the earth, etc, and that it's been that way throughout history.

Though I believe in some sort of higher power, I accept that humans are a species of the earth and that there are biological roles for the sexes, -orientation and gender minorities aside. So I can understand why those roles or beliefs would be described as "feminist" or feminine. I think that it was the biological roles that initially asigned males and females to their places, -hunter and caregiver- but "society" and civilization grew from that base and cultural beliefs, religion and delegated tasks took hold from there. NOW, as we progress as a species, different ideas are coming into play, and in the western world we have the luxury of choosing what we want to do, it's not vital that women stay home to feed children, because men or paid caregivers can do that, literacy is flourishing, women and men are experiencing new things and trying out new roles.

I DO feel with all of my being that men are totally able to feel these things and fill these roles, it just hasn't been as encouraged in them.... that is improving, greatly improving, fathers are almost always in the delivery rooms - something unheard of 50 years ago-, men are slowly signing up for "nuturing" careers: nurses, teachers, etc.

It is totally possible, in my opinion, to have the two spheres meld, and for the best of both worlds to benefit our society, especially the nuturing and empathy aspects, if people had more empathy, we wouldn't have most of the global problems we are faced with today.

Our sexuality is a powerful force - how could anyone deny that? Sure, a very few people have ambiguous sex organs, but as adults many report "choosing" a gender. A very few may not want to or feel the need to. But most humans fall into a male or female physiology and most humans identify with one or the other, regardless of their sexual orientation or whether they have a penis, or vagina, or both (or neither). If who we are weren't relevent to what we are, then there would be no compulsion to distinguish between one or the other.

If we deny our bodies, if we refuse to accept the connection between our minds and bodies, then those who would judge us (women) according to our physiology, and accordingly find us lacking, have won. They have succeeded in making us ashamed of being women, with all that entails.

[ June 18, 2002: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]

quote:

---

How about we do it without hiding who we are and see what happens.

---

I'm returning to the conversation late, but just wanted to say I didn't mean to imply earlier that clersal had hijacked the thread--I was implying that maybe I had and perhaps people would prefer I take it outside. Was sensing some hostility.

I'll just slowly back away from the discussion saying that I have at no time denied that we are animals, or sexual, that women--as opposed to men--have babies, or any of these very obvious facts of life. I just think it's dangerous to make the leap that attempts to connect objective biological fact (eg. women give birth) to social behaviors (eg. women like to garden and take care of stuff).

[ June 18, 2002: Message edited by: clersal ]

quote:

---

Was sensing some hostility.

---

Sorry about that. Got a little testy. (Been there four times; done that in every position; had the scars bronzed.) Want more logic in my rhetoric. Want more results with my cornflakes. But put that rubber band around the business end of the garden shears (for the moment).

Is this a good time for my perennial book plug? Read 'Gate to Women's Country' by Sheri Tepper.

[ June 18, 2002: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

Women tend to give and follow directions by landmarks. Men by direction.

Coincidently, many where a certain herbs grow can make a big difference in their potency, times of day, of year, phases of the moon all have their importance in the growing and harvesting of food and medicine.

Also when speaking to female gardeners you almost invariably hear how they feel renewed energy from having their hands in the earth, how they feel more connected to themselves, more balanced.

Male gardeners generally are more concerned with the size of their crops.

When women talk they bring in all aspects of a situation they are describing. I think because we generally feel and experience things on many levels. We are aware of how we feel, how the person in front of seems to feel, our surroundings, do we feel safe, do we have enough time to shop before we have to pick up the kids, etc.

Men tend to be more self centred and therefore, experience things more linerally and so when they are in conversation it is straight and to the point leaving out all the details.

Years of these things being important in the way we needed to survive are not going to be changed overnight.

Men no longer need to hunt, women no longer need to gather foodstuffs, or medicinal herbs our celluar memories, however, are still preparing us for these things.

Our hormones such as those released at the time of birth which bond us to our children, have not been told to work on men instead.

quote:

---

how the person in front of seems to feel, our surroundings

---

quote:

---

Male gardeners generally are more concerned with the size of their crops

---

Men too Wingnut on the highway. They are always in such a bloody hurry to pass and a 100 yards down they turn in to have a coffee.

quote:

---

*WARNING* Sweeping generalizations ahead*****

---

Post your favorite sweeping generalization that were accepted as fact, but now shown to be....well...you get the drift.

My favorite SG's from the past:
Women are to sensitive and delicate to be given the right to vote.

The question I would ask now is: Does or can feminism -- or, if you like, traditional feminine training, in its positive manifestations -- arm us against realpolitik?

Pretty obviously, feminism is no automatic defence against realpolitik, since there is a feminist version of same. Condoleeza Rice, for instance: Aren't we all just overjoyed that there's at least one influential woman in the White House? I don't think I have to expand on the winkiness of that line in this forum -- but we all know that there are many many people who sincerely believe that Rice is a liberated woman, should be a source of pride for feminists, her position a sign of social progress, etc.

In the late 1970s a number of women friends my age or slightly younger started saying things to me like, "I gotta get an MBA." These were women who, like me, ten years before had joined the first women's lib groups, who'd been through the vilification of being called bra-burners, who'd laughed at the continual charge we faced at first, that we were trying to "turn women into men." (Break for hysterical laughter. )

When I first heard sisters -- not just the daughters of the elite, but thirty-year-old single women who'd been happy up to that point to live like hippies and fight the power -- talking happily about ladder-climbing and networking, I admit I reacted with horror and anger. But you guys! was all I could think. This is what we weren't going to do! You're giving up! You've already decided: we can't beat 'em -- we're gonna join 'em.

And some of them really had. I know some joiners. I know some women who've learned to enjoy putting their feet in other people's faces on the way up, if that's what it takes. *grimace*

Most of us, though, were just making compromises to survive. It still bothers me that "survival," to a lot of middle-class people (not just women), meant and still means "If I'm not making a hundred thou, I'm in danger of being a bag lady," although I honestly do believe that huge numbers of younger women were and are thinking exactly that. The alternatives, to a lot of women once they've faced what supporting yourself really means, often did and do seem that stark, and often mean that one starts making ruthless choices about what to study, where to work, how to live, whom to cultivate, etc.

And maybe the alternatives really have become that stark. Anyone think so?

Anyway, I don't feel as shocked by some of my contemporaries as I used to, even the ones who have become the dreaded Yuppies who so disgust so many activists on babble. A lot of them did all they could see to do, and I saw the bullet-biting it took from a generation of women who had NOT been raised to believe they would have to look after themselves -- it wasn't easy. The ones who are feeling smug I don't admire, exactly ... But how different are the choices they faced from those that most men have to make too?

So: in the face of a world that demonstrably can co-opt any healthy political movement that comes to look powerful (as women's lib certainly did), a world that has so many, such a large majority of ordinary people convinced that there are no alternatives to its ways, no alternatives that permit you to eat, anyway: does feminism still have defiant arguments to make, arguments that could change the world, not just go along to get along?

[ June 25, 2002: Message edited by: skdadl ]