On Thu, 20 Jun 1996, Stephen R. Figgins wrote:
>
> I actually think lawns originated as a display of wealth. <snip>
I don't
think that lawns originated as a show of mastery over nature. >
Displays of wealth and status *ARE* displays of power and the ability to
dominate.--- Carolyn.
> Of course our ideas of beauty are influenced by our culture, <snip>
> I don't think that aesthetic is
> based on anything sexist, racist, ageist or ableist. There are some
> human aesthtics related to order, relation of shapes, balance, color,
> etc. that are I think, more related to what pleases people in general,
> and are not specific to society.
I agree that asthetics are based on colorshapes, etc. Have you seen the
art of Georgia O'Keefe? Her art utilizes natural design. What I feel is
the problem is the homocentric idea that our order is of geater value than
that of nature. If you look closely at a prairie, you will see that
there is great organization, balance, color, pattern, design, shape, etc.
not to mention diversity!--- Carolyn.
>
> I could see a parallel between social pressure to mow our lawns, and
> to cut off our body hair. (In fact sometimes shaving is referred to
> as mowing.) I actually am not terribly for lawns. I think they
> provide a nice play space for children. If I had a large yard, I
> might just pick a good sized area to devote to some low growing ground
> cover, perhaps even grass, and keep it well manicured for my daughter
> to use.
I think the paralell of lawns and body hair should be more closely
examined. The history of the tradition of women shaving their legs and
armpits was begun in the early part of this century by the Gillette
company. They nearly doubled their markey by promoting shaved bodies as
being "cleaner, whiter and smoother" than the poor huddled masses of the
European immigrants. I can back this up with sources if you want them.
This is racist and classist.
The idea of using lawns as a place to play is in my opinion
elitist. Am I to understand that beauty lies in utility? My children
play in a field of grasses and though they trample the grasses, I feel no
compulsion to cut it down so they will have a smooth surface to play on.
> Gardens could be seen as a mastery of nature, but I think they could
> also be seen as a harmony with nature. <snip>
Vegetable gardens are a source of food. Flowers can be a natural form
of pest control. Yes, this is utilitarian in a sence, but less so than
are lawns.---Carolyn.
> > > As for the idea of seeking out nature 'untouched' by
> > humanity, this is totally caught within the idea that we are separate
> > from nature. In an important sense we are nature. Moreover, this
> > idea has disturbing parallels with mastering ideas of purity and male
> > fantasies of 'deflowering' 'innocent' and 'untouched' women.
> > Thoughts/feelings?
I take offense at the entire idea that nature is a woman. I beleive that
we are all part of an organism that includes nature and culture, male and
female, weak and strong, AND everything in between.---Carolyn.
> > I said as much in my previous post. That often our thoughts of
> wilderness are bound up in our own separation of humans from nature.
> Human action is seen as interfering with nature, where maybe we should
> see it as a part of nature. A part that is often out of balance,
> destructive, and may lead to a world inhospitable to human life. But
> still a part of nature.
The problem comes in when our "needs" (or the desires of the part) are
given priority over the health of the whole.---Carolyn.
>
> I think the parallels you mentioned are disturbing. I often find such
> analogies helpful for making a point. But I think they are
> exagerated, and do not reflect my experiences.
These analogies do reflect my experiences!---That is why I am an
ecofeminist. Maybe you should look at where most of the power lies
as an insight to your experience---Carolyn.
>
> My partner and I do enjoy a nice hike back into the woods, to take a
> look at plants and animals, to just be in the forest, to awaken our
> spirituality, and to renew our belief that we are not separate from
> nature. We like to find those places where the handprint of humanity
> is faint, places that are less civilized, less humanized. This is one
> way we renew our kinship to the rest of the earth and heal the rift we
> feel between ourselves and nature.
I think that it is important to maintain the areas of light touch of
humanity. But, i further feel that our immediate surroundings should
also reflect that concern. It seems hypocritical to say this and then
turn away from it in our daily experience.---Carolyn.
>
> I think it is important Richard, to question what we consider beauty,
> and to examine our feelings about wilderness, and our separation from
> nature. We should also look at how we seek these things, is it to
> exert power over these things, or do we find power with them. But I
> don't think we have to reject all of our aesthetics or cease seeking
> out beauty and wildness in our selves, our civilization or in the
> woods.
I am not suggesting that we abandon our sense of asthetics. I simply think
that we may need to re-examine and possibly redefine it.---Carolyn.
>
Speaking of imbalance, I don't want Richard and I to dominate the
> discussion here. Are there others out there with opinions on this?
>
> --Stephen
You asked for it. It is sometimes often a mistake to get meup on a soap
box. I don't always know when to stop.---Carolyn.
Peace,
Carolyn J. Feser
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
