deborah wrote:
> I see that anne thought my defense of Western democracy was "a load
> of crap" :) and followed that up with a tirade against technology.I
> know that Jayne and others have already responded but I would like to
> further emphasize the point that so far as women's lives and health
> are concerned, those of us who live in late twentieth century
> democratic societies are far far better off in almost every
> conceivable way than our foremothers *and* most women in
> non-democratic societies today.
which foremothers deborah? the ones who suffered under the boot of
the rising western judeo-christian and later scientific worldviews- the
same stuff responsible for the CONSIDERABLE subordination of MOST women
in the world today. well our foremothers go farther back than the middle
ages in europe. i would say we (especially those of us 1st world women)
have taken a deep plunge from the lives of our foremothers in ancient africa
and the americas, and we might possibly never truly resurface within the
echoes of those lives we talk so romantically about. maybe it IS easier
for me and you to live a respectable life without being a
reproductive and sexual slave, and maybe we dont die in childbirth as
often etc....but really, when you say "we" are you talking about ALL women
or those who lead similar lives
as yours. you really have no idea what is going on with women in
"non-democratic" societies, OR non white middle class academic
communities in the US. i find it hard to believe its really all that
different there. but its different for YOU and thats what counts right?
* also we now have nuclear energy on this planet now, and we really dont
know what its doing to us and i think that is very important in figuring out
just how well off we are.
> practicing their religion, were considered the property of their
> fathers, brothers, or husbands, could not divorce an abusive husband,
> had no right to their children etc etc. These have been the
> realities of women's lives throughout much of history and, to a
> certain degree, throughout the world today.
here's the ironic part. all these things you named, as well as all the
shit women deal with in non-western cultures (including circumcision in
africa) has been either directly caused or considerably fueled and
perpetuated by the very socalled "democratic" western contemporary
governments you claim are so advanced.. imperialism, colonialism, mass
murder, social control, manifest destiny, capitalism, christianity. these
are the vehicles by which our precious contemporary institutions have
been delivered to our doorsteps. you and i and everyone on this list has
total access to the benefits, while billions of humans, other animals,
plants etc...suffer from them, and it all works together like a perfectly
oiled machine. your supposed liberation is on
the backs of those who in many ways still live the life you described
that women (read: white upper class) have escaped due to the triumph of
democracy.
> your baby. Perhaps it is true that in the Neolithic societies of
> Crete and Old Europe women were equal partners. But such
> women-friendly cultures are the exception and not the rule.
bullshit! you really believe that? all we know is history in the few
thousand years before christ. and in that time, we witness the
destruction of biocentric ("pre-industrial") cultures in which men and
women regarded one another as equal in many ways. who knows about before
that? and THE WOMEN_FRIENDLY CULTURES OF OLD EUROPE ARE NOT THE ONLY
EXAMPLES OF NON-PATRIARCHAL CULTURES!! partnership and earthbased
cultures were alive all over africa, australia, asia and the americas
BEFORE EUROPEANS INVADED THEM WITH THEIR MODERN CONVENIENCES. and its
that modern democratic industrial western culture that motivates the
continued (as in today, this very second) colonialism of the third world
and especially its women (what better way to weaken a culture's integrity
than to see that its women are disempowered)..
> skyscrapers and bridges, the lights of a modern city. For the first
> time it struck me what a marvel such a city is. Without in any way
> denying the costs (environmental, economic and human) of our present
> lifestyle, I still felt profoundly moved by this heroic feat of
> construction. This is a different feeling, although somehow akin, to
> what I felt a week later walking in a forest near my home, which
> borders one of the tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay. There I lay
> face down on a pine needle forest floor and held my hands to the
> trunk of a beautiful old tree and felt the life energy running
> through it. I knew that I was a part of the tree and that the tree
> was part of me.
this makes me feel really sad for you that you find the forests of the
chesapeake bay a similar experience to PITTSBURGH!!
> I don't know if we will be able to find a balance between our
> aspirations and our limitations, between "nature" and "culture"; I do
> not believe that women=nature and that man=culture. I do not believe
> in any such dichotomies at all. I know that I personally *need* both
> the city (and all that the city implies i.e. technology) and the
> forest.
this is what i dont get. what is it about CITIES that seems to = culture.
and if there is nothing any longer in cities that is worthy of creating a
cultural mecca, then what is the vision of rebuilding them? ive read
enough about future eco cities to know that unless the NATURE of our
culture changes (as in, our culture reclaims its own nature), NO CITY
WILL EXIST IN A ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE WAY- so why take the risk? whats
the point? why look toward sustainable architecture when we have (for how
long who knows) towering forest cathedrals and wild rivers cutting deep
into massive mountains? let the grass take over pittsburgh!!!!!
-anne
