On Sun, 13 Nov 1994, Ani Mareck wrote: > Here I feel it is important to recognize that by men stepping back and making > room for women to speak we still reinforce the myth of women as essentially > victims and being in need of protection by males. As women, in order > to be whole, it is necessary that we make room for ourselves in > discussions, and give up the victim attitude so effectively > perpetuated by our culture. > As long as we as women act from our fears, and hope that someone will > give us our space on a silver platter, we are still victims and will > continue to be treated as victems by society at large. > in order to restore balance to the earth, we need a gestalt of true > masculine and true feminine thought and action. We can not have that > until each of us understands what that is, and each of us takes the > necessary steps to make changes in ourselves. I think Ani's point is so important, and so well stated, that I wanted to be sure everyone read it. Obviously I agree with this ... I'm also chewing on the spiritual question; I think the answers so far are fascinating and well done, but I *think* I'll have more to say. I'm a little distracted by my imminent (and Immanent) marriage. Later, Faith >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Nov 16 14:52:21 MST 1994 Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 14:55:10 -0700 (MST) From: anne jordan dashiell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: anarchy To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> okay, i have read through almost every post since last thursday when i went out of town, and i thought id put in my two cents about some of this stuff.. > First, I would like to say that I think the discussion of anarchy has relevance > to ecofeminism, because those who wish to change the way things are done in the > world today must decide whether that is best done within existing institutions, > in different institutions, or without any institutions. I would then argue > that the goals of ecofeminsm are not well-served by principles of anarchy. i think its important to look at all of these goals as important and interdependent. i think the real question then is how we individually will go about working for the "ecofeminist goal" which is i hope a "free society". and by free i dont mean just for those who want sustainable capitalism and equal protection for all people under the law. i think anarchism is necessary in working for a truly free (non-technological, wild ?) society, as (within the present context) is political work and building new institutions. they work off each other in a lot of ways, but that doesnt mean i or many people i know are too interested in participating in the political system at all. at the same time, people who do work in the system are suspicious in my eyes and i have a hard time trusting that they have the same goal as me. even on this list, the questions like "wont anarchy mean complete disorder and more crime and abuse than now..." makes me realize we arent all in the same camp just because we all somehow identify with ecofem. that sentiment is a product of capitalist indocrination and dependence on authority, however subconscious it may be. heres an example: the pro-choice movement working to pass anti-civil disobedience laws to keep anti-choicers from harassing women at clinics is fueling the legal barriers for direct action eco-activists (like earthfirst!ers) who block logging roads and try and plug up drainage pipes. its pointless to argue about "what if" anarchy came to be (as if anarchy is itself some form of governance, and as if it would just "happen" anyway). we need to start envisioning our own lives as anarchistic in nature by locating and destroying our own dependencies on technology, law, authority and objectivity. building new alternative institutions without those values while building new ways of communicating, understanding and relating is a way to resist creatively. creative resistance has to go along with living within and alongside nature. in a biocentric way. ive heard the term "wild culture" to describe the eco-anarchistic vision of "society". and here is where "spirituality" comes in. its not just about resisting "religion" but about reclaiming lost connections with the rest of nature. that is spirituality to me. at the most basic, recognizing "god" in the trees and the mountains, and living your life with that recognition as the motivation for all action. this is hard having been indoctrinated into this culture, but thats why anarchy is not some state of being or concrete structure. its a continuous revolt (chaos) against authority while reconizing the supreme order inherent in natural law. one thing i want to say is that i have recently realized that the universe is about the balance struck between order and chaos. i think thats a good way to look at the "purpose" of life, and its the only definition of "human nature" i can deal with. unity in diversity and the eastern idea of change (god is change) go along with this concept. anarchy is the most natural and direct "ideology" (if we can even call it that) to come out of that idea. i wont ramble, i think this connection is obvious. i agree with brian about people having the capacity to "govern" themselves without authority. collective authority is how people have kept relative "order" or safety and sustainability for centuries before centralized govts became the norm. spain is not the only example of anarchy in action. ...next time someone tells you they are an anarchist, try employing your theories of "unity in diversity" and "from the bottom up" by imagining a society in which you were free to act as your own "moral agent" and create a reality that allowed you to live free from things like rent and speeding tickets and answer to nobody except yourself and the people you love and to look for meaning in simplicity and practice sustainability and self-sufficiency. just imagine it for a second. i think the biggest thing people fear about 'ararchy' is their own incapacity to live free and self-dependent, and to follow their hearts. we have forgotten our own wilderness - thats the first oppression. -anne >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Nov 16 15:11:12 MST 1994 Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 15:14:07 -0700 (MST) From: anne jordan dashiell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: The nature of nature To: Deborah Rudacille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> DEBORAH wrote: > It seems to me (and I wish I were wrong) that violence/aggression is > endemic to nature and that it will therefore exist in some form in > all societies. It can be channeled into socially acceptable modes > (football and capitalism come to mind) and those modes can be > mediated by "rules" and "referees", but it will exist. i agree that violence and agression are integral to nature as a whole, and because of that i think we need to accept it as part of our own lives. i dont "wish I were wrong" at all....i think the challenge as humans is to use that energy in sustainable ways , which is something other living things have mastered through instinct. so i think as humans, part of our instinct has to do with organizing and creating in ways that sustains us, and that often takes the form of self-defense against predators. the problem is we have been so removed from the knowledge of what we need to do to sustain ourselves and our species, that we have become reliant on abuse, objectification, exploitation etc... its easier in the short run but in the long run we see that it only ensures our own extinction. the irony of being human... > who pretend to speak for "the people". As a species, we don't seem > to have yet evolved a biophilic system in which each individual is > completely free to speak/think/be for themselves. woah! dont you think this is more our forced removal/separation/colonization of our own minds and bodies from the spirit or "imminence" all around us? how do you know the path of our evolution as a species? and anyway, im curious how you define speak/think/be for ourselves...cuz it might not be what im thinking.. I continue to > maintain however (at the risk of sounding like a broken record) that > contemporary western democracies are the closest we've come to > fulfilling that ideal-- i know im gonna get reamed but i have to say this is the biggest load of crap ive read on here so far today. im sorry i know no more civilized way to say it!! -anne >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Nov 16 15:32:54 MST 1994 Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (anne jordan dashiell) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 15:35:48 -0700 (MST) From: anne jordan dashiell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sender: anne jordan dashiell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: anne jordan dashiell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: anarchy To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I fear for what would happen to women and to the environment if we truly moved > toward a society devoid of authority. It just isn't true that authority is > intrinsically bad. It is a necessary condition for civilization. > > H.C. Ellis HC, you also dont think "profit" is intrinsically bad, right? maybe these things are necessary conditions for YOUR "civilization", in which case you have a lot of things from your past you need to deal with.....besides, the "civilization" that we are currently living is not exactly something i want to see continued... sure authority is necessary for what we are living out these days. thats the whole PROBLEM!! your fear of "moving toward a society devoid of authority" is a problem. of course us human beings are too dependent on authority to detatch from it. and the irony is that THEY KNOW IT! and they use it to colonize us more and more, so much so that we dont even recognize our enemies among ourselves. its the perfect plan. anarchy is not so much a state of non-governance as much as a state of resistance. by resisting authority individually and through small collective groups and institutions, we are actively moving toward the liberation of all life forms. there is no end product in my mind besides the dream of the removal of everypiece of industrial technology from the face of the planet. the means IS the end. i know this is hard for many to swallow, but i say if you cant imagine being fulfilled in a world with zero technology or authority then i feel very very sad for you. -anne
