Will Bason wrote:
> Women have the vote now. Evidently women are voting for a lot of men.
>
> Women are the majority of voters now. Does this mean that this mess
> is
> YOUR fault. No. What i mean is that if we come from an inclusive
> place
> then we create less unnecessary resistance. Do you want change, or do
> you
> want revenge?
This brings up an interesting point: Do we vote for women, who must
compete for their political place within the already established male
structures (i.e. fight dirty, lie, steal, cheat your way to the "top")
regardless of what they stand for and risk voting in a lot of Margaret
Thatchers, or do we take a stab at voting for whoever seems to be the
most reasonable male leader on offer at present?
During the last local elections that came up in my area, I resolved to
vote for women regardless of what sort of person they were, and
regardless of what they stood for. This presented me with the dilemma
that the only woman running for Mayor offered as a solution to the local
lack of employment opportunities: "I think more people should grow
wild-flowers to export, and make little historical figurines to sell to
tourists". Not "bad" suggestions in themselves (although I'm sure the
world isn't craving yet more little tourist figurines), but rather
impractical - how many people could those industries realistically
support? Still I voted for her. Unfortunately, it turned out that there
were no women to vote for in one category, so instead of voting I wrote
on my ballot paper "Why aren't there any women on this list?"
"So blame women for not having the stamina to run for office", you (or
someone else) might say. But of course, before women can get their foot
in the door, there is so much to overcome in the way of ingrained
subserviance and idiotic, pig-headed, aggressive male hegemonic
opposition, and once they get there they have to continue to deal with
it day in, day out. Similarly one might ask "Why don't more women play
football?" Because aside from anything else, it's a senseless, violent,
pointless game, designed to glorify male aggression.
Aside from that, I find your language and assumptions rather insulting.
Do you want to argue, or do you want to add something constructive?
> I'm glad you consider me your buddy, and that you are content with
> your
> economic and material situation.
I find you rather patronising, in fact.
> Life is wonderful and sacred and offers ad hoc initation experience to
>
> those who are ready. Childbirth is an initiation, for sure. Lots of
> men
> who have taken their parental responsibilities as fathers in a family
> to
> raise children might feel that this is an initiation too.
They might feel that it is so, but evidently it doesn't compare to the
female experience. I have listened for some time to the voices of
fathers and the voices of mothers, and the main concern of many fathers
seems to be getting revenge on the mother, getting a "dirty" lawyer to
stop her from having any rights to her child (this is their idea of
'winning'), while the mothers - although not always blameless - talk far
more of the concerns of the child. It may well be that women could do
more to include their husbands in the rearing of their children from
infancy, and many men take the role of financially providing for the
children quite seriously, but (as has been proposed many times before)
this is often an escape from the emotionally draining (if also
fulfilling) experience of attending to all the needs and whims of a
frustrated and inarticulate baby.
In short, fathering a child does not help men to "grow up" at all in the
same way that a women must when faced with the task of raising the child
she has carried in her body every moment of the day for the better part
of a year and then given birth to. It is easy for men to remain as
selfish and inconsiderate as ever, taking off to the pub when the going
gets tough, and many do.
> Lots of women who
> have never had children are wonderful, deep and mature beings.
To be sure, but all the childless women I can think of that I know lack
the maturity and selflessness of a mother. Some have cats as
substitutes, but "mothering" a pet does not have the same effect. If a
mother is selfish, her child will not let her rest, she has no choice
but to fulfill their needs and to watch them tirelessly lest they injure
themselves or be abducted or abused by some (usually male) fiend. And if
her child is unhappy, she (typically) cannot let herself rest.
If we believe in a Creator, as I do, and as many very grown-up people
do, we can't "blame" men for being selfish and childish in this way, but
they certainly don't belong up there playing at being the "rulers of the
universe" in their present evolutionary stage.
It's a big job to reconstruct the current politico-economic structures,
as noone would deny. As many have said, and continue to say, that system
is doomed to collapse sooner or later anyway, and hopefully there will
be a functioning alternative ready to take it's place when (or
preferably before) that time comes.
> Lee, i don't want to be a them. I am an ally. Treat me as an ally
> and not
> an enemy and we will all be stronger for it.
I must say you haven't acted much like an ally so far. I find it amusing
and ironic that I should join a list called "ecofem" and be confronted
by a man who wants to make me wrong for expressing my opinions.
Lee.
--
Conflict between separated parents
http://www1.tpgi.com.au/users/resolve/ncpreport/
\|/ \|/
. .
/|\ /|\
Live simply...we're killing the planet
http://www1.tpgi.com.au/users/resolve/globalcrisis/
Sustainable Future Webring
http://www1.tpgi.com.au/users/resolve/globalcrisis/webring.html
