Hello, Ecofem, Lee, everyone.
In response to my examples of domination under a patriarchal system,
including adults over children, Lee Jenkins wrote:
> It's difficult to imagine successful parenting in this society without the adult
>having authority over the child, but I dare say a "successful" society would probably
>be wildly different to this one in many respects.
>
Yes, a successful society will be wildly different than this one, but
there are transformative steps we can take right now in our
relationships with one another and with the earth that will help bring
about that more successful society. The adult-child relationship is one
place to start.
The word I used was domination, not authority, and I am referring not
only to the parent-child relationship, but to the societal treatment of
children in general, i.e. as belonging to the parent so long as the
parent follows society's rules, belonging to the state otherwise.
While there is much I could say on the subject, I'm not inclined to get
into a detailed discussion about it at this time, unless you and/or
others are interested. Patriarchy in general treats children as
property. I'll just leave it at that for now.
Re: aggression. The debate over the "aggressive instinct" has been
going on for decades. Scientifically, it's unresolved. Anecdotally,
I've seen tough, pushy little girls and gentle, shy little boys. What
does this prove? Nothing. The real question -- the one I should have
asked -- is, if such an instinct exists, does it necessarily preclude
the development of a harmonious human society? Our present war-making
culture seems to think so, but the archeological evidence of the
earliest civilizations suggests that prior to the onset of the
patriarchy, humans lived peaceably for millenia.
We humans -- males in particular -- may well be naturally aggressive.
It may be part of our genetic makeup. But so are fins, and we've
managed to grow hands and fingers nonetheless. I'm much more interested
in seeing what we can become, rather than in defining what we have been
in the past.
Re: competition. Lee wrote:
> Many people, apparently, believe that competition brings out the best in everything.
>I watched my sister and her husband encourage sibling
> rivalry to get their toddler to eat his breakfast: "Look, Audrey ate all hers, so
>you should eat yours..." Nationalism, interhouse school
> sports... It's everywhere. Many people clearly believe it's a good
> thing. Our education system is built on it as are industry, the economy, the
>government - what isn't?
Precisely my point. We are so indoctrinated with the competitive norm
that any idea that challenges it is immediately dismissed as unnatural,
unworkable, naive, etc. I believe competition can have a place in
society, that games and races and the like can be fun. But in ordering
an entire society around the competitive model, we end up with gross
social inequality and ecological ruin. It's part of the dominator
system, and we have to have the courage and vision to see beyond it.
Lee's response to my question, "How many of us believe... that, like it
or not, might really does make right?" was:
>
> Huh?
>
Was it my use of the word "us" that caused the confusion here? I'm
asking, how many people in our society believe that might makes right?
That the one with the biggest gun wins? Judging from the way people in
this country respond to our military actions worldwide, I'd say a great
many believe exactly that: that we're bigger, we're stronger, we're
richer, so we're right. It's just one more example of how deeply
entrenched the patriarchal order is.
> I think the way to win is to start a new game - a win/win one, recruit
> the many, many players who don't enjoy the dominant one and demonstrate it to be
>more fun.
Yes! That's the real beauty of a society that is not based on a
hierarchical, competitive, dominator paradigm: that there is much more
joy and pleasure and fun to be had -- for everyone. My point is that we
don't have to accept that what we're being offered is all there is. In
other words, we don't have to play THEIR game.
Respectfully,
PS Pirro (Zanne)
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Aug 27 09:38:02 1997
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 08:37:58 -0700 (PDT)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Carolyn Gage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hello Will
>A friend of mine has a favourite theory that what is lacking for men in
>modern society is an initiation ceremony that helps them to grow from
>boyhood into manhood. Childbirth serves this purpose for women, but men
>do not routinely go through a similar experience, (unless there's a war
>to go to, which is more or less the opposite of childbirth) which places
>them at the mercy of life, commits them to intense physical and
>emotional involvement. I think my friend has a point.
>
>Lee.
>
I read something else that was interesting. It said that there really were
only mothers and children. When men acted like children, they needed to be
treated as children. When they acted as allies to mothers, that is the only
time they should be accorded the power of adults. As it is now, the
majority of men seem to have the powers of a mother, with the mentality of
children, which makes them a major menace.
I work in a field where the discrimination against women is so brutal that
"separatism" was forced on me for my survival, although I have resented when
the term is applied to me as a tool for further oppression, marginalization.
I have found separatism to be extremely creative and dynamic. It has meant
a loss of middle class lifestyle, but I have found that my growing
solidarity with women living apart from men and male privilege has made this
easier for me. I am now aware of the "separatism" from my own gender that
would have been imposed had I continued in assimilationist culture. A sort
of Ghandian experience, except that I hesitate to use his example, of
course, because of his fierce misogyny and status as sexual abuser.
Separatism, in my experience, is the quickest way for any colonized people
(and women are globabally colonized) to facilitate the education of the
colonizers. Their own dependency drives them to unheard of states of
awareness that all the lecturing, lobbying, and pleading in the world could
never achieve.
I highly recommend it, and would be happy to share strategy --- with women,
of course, off-line.
Carolyn Gage
