On Wed, 21 Sep 1994 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It is interesting that many of us have responded (often negatively) to the
> concept of the feminine being somehow closer to nature. While I do not
> necessarily agree with this, nor do I believe that it is right to assume that
> the most wonderful thing a woman can do (hence, her most vital function to the
> world) is to have a child, I do not find it offensive either. It seems that we
> are quick to reject the important function of the creation of life, whether the
> "birther" be a woman, an animal, a plant, or Mother Earth. An understanding of
> what has been traditionally called "feminine" and an acceptance of the feminine
> as a good thing is, IMO, important for BOTH men and women. (while at the same
> time not rejecting that which is "male" either)
I wouldn't so much consider it as rejecting the creation of
life, as rejecting the concept that the creation of life is solely a
woman's job and ability.
> I don't believe we should focus on the differences (whether biological or
> socially constructed) between men and women. However, we must acknowledge
> their presence, and learn to accept both the "male" and the "female" sides of
> each person.
Agreed.
>
> I'm sorry, I think I lost my train of thought about five lines ago.
>
> Forgot what I was talking about :)
>
Don't worry, I lost mine months ago and tthe tracks too!!!
