Re: children under patriarchy. There is a difference between authority
and domination. While, in my opinion, authority should always be
challenged, there are cases in which it stands up to the challenge. For
example, as a parent I can exercise authority over my child by
restraining her from dashing out into the street where she'll be run
over by a car. That's a legitimate use of authority. It restricts my
child's freedom, but the larger issue of her safety takes precedence in
this case. Parenting is about balancing these competing needs: a child
needs to grow and learn, but a child also needs to be protected. The
older/more mature a child gets, the greater the balance is tipped in
favor of freedom, and the authority of the parent wanes. That's my take
on it, anyway.
But domination can never be justified; that is to say, it is never just.
And children -- as well as women and the very earth we live on -- are
under a system of domination in patriarchy. One way to think of it is
to consider the idea of unequal access. Parents have access to the
child's room but the child has no corresponding access to the parents'
room. The school principal can search a student's locker, but the
student can't search the principal's desk. In a relationship of equals,
access is equal. This doesn't mean everyone gets to look in everyone
else's room. It means your space is sacred, and my space is sacred.
Those with the most access under our patriarchy -- transnational
corporations -- can go wherever they want and take whatever they
desire. No place at all is sacred. That's what I mean by "property."
Am I making sense to anyone? I know this is a complex issue, and I have
a tendency to oversimplify for the sake of brevity.
It's a strange hierarchy of
> "respect" in our society. I always find it laughable that the
> pasty-faced guy who's got his own office, but doesn't have a clue what's
> going on and causes more problems than he solves is supposed to be
> revered and tiptoed around, while the clerks who keep everything going
> are dismissed with contempt. But perhaps this is a digression...
>
Not at all. Your point is well-taken. I've noticed that people in
positions of power tend to hold in contempt anyone on whom they depend:
wives, employees, etc. And people who are not in power take their cues
from those above them, so the clerk feels self-contempt for doing such a
"lowly" job. It's a system set up to create a vast number of "losers."
In our culture, we're not supposed to "need" people. Radical autonomy
is considered the highest achievement. But autonomy is an illusion; we
all need other people and we are all dependent on the earth. Our
culture hasn't wanted to admit this, which is why we're so messed up.
> I don't believe I implied that current aggression levels in males or
> humans generally could never be overcome sufficiently to achieve
> harmony. Did I miss something?
>
No, you didn't miss anything. I was expanding on my original point,
taking the discussion one step further. As an aside, it always makes me
sad (when it doesn't make me want to scream) that when problems of male
aggression arise (say, a campus rapist) the proposed solution is
inevitably to restrict the freedom of women.
> I find it a bit of a contradiction that you dismiss an easily observable
> phenomenon on the basis of it being "scientifically unproven" and yet
> you state this rather far-fetched bit of scientific religion as though
> it were fact. Fins are part of our genetic makeup? I'm sorry, but I
> don't accept that.
>
Okay. Perhaps I was a bit too glib here. When I said that the
existence of an aggressive instinct is scientifically unproven, I meant
that we have yet to discover a biological determinant -- an "aggression"
gene. This assumes, of course, that all behavior is the result of
biochemistry, and I'm not sure I agree with that, so I'm not sure I
agree with myself. (Whitman: "Do I contradict myself? Well, then I
contradict myself. I am large. I contain multitudes.") Does our DNA
contain fin-making instructions? I'm no expert on the subject, but in
the development of the fetus, fingers are formed after hands, which are
formed from little fins. I know, I know -- I've admitted it was glib.
Sorry.
So, we're in substantial agreement. Great! Now, how do we restore the
feminine qualities that our Western cultures in particular have so
effectively eradicated? How do we save the earth? Some have proposed
that since corporations are committing the most egregious sins against
the planet, a revocation of corporate charters is a place to start. Any
thoughts, anyone?
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Aug 29 09:37:53 1997
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 10:33:54 -0500
From: GRIFFIN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: patriarchy and the solution
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
dear ecofemers (To all those contributing to this debate) --
helen lobato wrote:
>
> Patriarchy has ruined lives. That is not in dispute.
the only way out is to create a
> new order without patriarchy, without hierarchy and one based on equal
> decision making and autonomy.
> sustainable living. Learning to let go of the consumer lifestyle and setting
> up local food gardens and workshops. This plan of living incorporates the
> principles of anarchy and ecofeminism. Anarchy in the form of abolition of
> the centralised power and ecofeminism as it relates to the care of the land
> and the caring of human beings. Such a society that cares for the wellbeing
> of its people is not one which we live in but it could be improved if we
> boycott what they, the capitalists, the patriarchs have designed for us today.
Helen, i fully agree. My biggest question to everyone, however, is how
to get from here to there. "WE," despite women making up 51%, we as
feminists/ecocology-minded folk are in the minority. How do we work
with, work past, change, what is so ingrained in our society? Yes, it
does take each individual's action, and yes, change is slow -- but
perhaps that is part of the problem/part of what i'm asking. The
deterioration of the earth is happening far too rapidly. In the States,
at least, people in general are so self-focused that they connot see
past themselves. And that is a vicious cycle in itself.
WHY have we devolved to a capitalist centered system? What was/is the
attraction? This is not a rhetorical question.
I was told once that you have to start "where people are," and if you
do not start form that place your efforts will be futile. Seems like a
catch 22 to me.
seeking response,
gwendolyn
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Aug 29 12:35:28 1997
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 13:36:32 -0500
From: PS Pirro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Hello Zanne
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Re: Society treating children as possessions
>
> This can also apply to men treating woman as possessions and people treating
> the Earth as a possession. The truth is LOVE IS NOT POSSESSION - LOVE IS
> FREE! The problems do arise when we treat children, woman and the Earth as
> possessions because they are not. They are gifts we should LOVE. I just
> think if we rearrange the way we all view the true gifts we have been given
> then we can defeat the patriarchy that destroys LOVE. thanks!
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I like your gentle spirit, Ecolady. But while you and I are
re-arranging the way we view the gifts we've been given, Shell Oil and
Mitsubishi and Archer-Daniels-Midland and the like are chewing up
ecosystems one after another. Yes, we need to change our consciousness,
but we also need to ACT UP.
Regards,
Zanne
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Aug 29 12:46:10 1997
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 13:47:13 -0500
From: PS Pirro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: patriarchy and the solution
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
helen lobato wrote:
>
> ... a society that cares for the wellbeing of its people is not one which we live in
>but it could be improved if we boycott what they, the capitalists, the patriarchs
>have designed for us today.
>
> Your thoughts are welcome
>
> Helen
I agree. It's what Lee and I have been calling "a new game" (I think it
is, anyway -- Lee?) You can see evidence of it in the intentional
economies that are springing up here and there (Ithaca, New York is the
one that most people know about) as well as intentional communities like
Nyland outside of Boulder, Colorado. People are beginning to recognize
that what capitalism offers is just a substitute for real life, and a
poor one at that.
Any specific boycotts you'd like to endorse?
Zanne
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Aug 29 14:46:13 1997
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 30 Aug 1997 06:48:37 +1000 (EST)
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 06:42:56 +1000
From: Lee Jenkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: patriarchy and the solution
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Helen,
Such a system is laid out in my web pages (listed below) -
http://www1.tpgi.com.au/users/resolve/globalcrisis/
It seems that a number of people have such an alternative in mind. All
that remains is to put it into practice and make it a working reality.
Lee.
helen lobato wrote:
> We need a real alternative to centralised
> power, a system where people live as individuals within workable
> communities
> where there is co-operation and decision making is shared among all
> members
> of the community. Patriarchy, the nuclear family, the state and the
> church
> and all other contributers to exploitation of people must be
> destroyed. But
> we must have viable alternatives and these could be in the form of
> communities at the local level.Into this arena comes the question of
> sustainable living. Learning to let go of the consumer lifestyle and
> setting
> up local food gardens and workshops. This plan of living incorporates
> the
> principles of anarchy and ecofeminism. Anarchy in the form of
> abolition of
> the centralised power and ecofeminism as it relates to the care of the
> land
> and the caring of human beings. Such a society that cares for the
> wellbeing
> of its people is not one which we live in but it could be improved if
> we
> boycott what they, the capitalists, the patriarchs have designed for
> us today.
>
> Your thoughts are welcome
>
> Helen
--
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
