Hi- to all!
My name is Katrina, and I thought I would introduce myself before
commenting on a current discussion. I am a senior at Lafayette College,
and currently working on an honors project entitled "Ecofeminism and
theFeminist Divide". In this project I address three main areas 1)
animals,2) the question of whether "women are closer to nature" and 3)
the gendering of the Earth and portrayl of Earth as Mother.
Today I want to address a question Faith Freewoman brings up, and how I
have written about it in my project.
>I'm also interested in discussion of the pros and cons of concieving the
>Earth as Mother... s
But
>there is so much in the metaphor of E as M which attracts me, and which
>seems to draw people in and create empathy ... **@@**!!
>
>Faith Freewoman
The concept of E. as M., does have a certain appeal- but I would argue
that is is very problematic in a patriarchal culture which does not
value women, let alone mothers! Regarding the E. as a woman and a mother
acts to harm both women and perpetuate the continual degradation of the
the earth. The gendering of the earth as woman happens in one of 4
possible ways: 1. as a romanticized female needing protection, 2.as a
victimized woman, 3.as a woman caretaker/breeder who constantly
replenishes and provides for all as a mother would or as 4.as a wild
uncontrollable woman- who needs to be subdued. These four depictions
each have their own problems associated with them, briefly I will
outline each.
The earth as romanticized female implies that protection is needed, and
puts both woman and the earth up on a pedastle, one which should remain
unpolluted by physical contact. This skews our relationship with the
earth.
The earth as a victimized female is also problematic- we are called in
much of the popular environmental literature to resuce the earth from
the villans who have been destroying 'her'- this imagery so closely
resmbles that of the damsel in distress who needs to be resuded by a
wonderful hero. Is this heroic effort helpfull or just another version
of domination? The earth in fact does not depend on us, we do not
control the fate of the earth- the earth will be here long after we (as
humans) have destroyed the earth's capacity to support our life form. In
actuality the only one needing heroic efforts is us!
This image of the earth as dependent also ties in with the image of the
earth as virginal and pure- one we should protect rather than 'rape'.
But the phrase 'rape of the wilderness' is interpreted very differently
by women- who have often been likened to the earth as a virtue of their
sex and gender. It gives women the message that only those women who
nurture and provide, taking on the role of mother/breeder deserve to be
free from rape- so it is a not so sublte message that the role of women
should be an all-giving mother.
The third role is one of mother/breeder- a role which is devalued in
Western patriarchal culture. When we regard the earth as mother, we
expect the earth to be selfless, nurturing, give endlessly and always
forgive. This parallels the role we have relegated nature to- one that
can be replenished no matter how much of the old growth forest we log
etc....
This metaphor is also problematic because it also resonates with the
blame mothers recieve especially for their fertility. For example, when
targeting overpopulation as a global environmental problem, the poor
brown woman in an devloping country is often blamed- and we forget to
look at the devloped nations overconsumption!!!!
These three images are different that the image of nature as an
uncontrollable woman-one we as a culture seek to dominate. The message
we reciev is that if we do not control nature she will destroy us. This
of couse obscures how men and people with power have and continue to
control and denigrate women, people of color and nature- while claiming
to romantically express love for these same categories.
In sum these metaphors act as a reminder to women of "our place"... and
abstracts the particular, real context or position the earth is in. A
sustainable nature then becomes an 'absent referent' instead replaced
with the devalued and often discarded position of women in our
misogynistic culture. So I don' t think gendering the earth, or
conceiving it as a mother is positive (however i think this is opposite
for animals who have a biological sex and gender!
I want to apologize for the typos- i have yet to figure out how to fix
them, and also to say most of these arguement come from a work Greta
Gaard had edited ***Ecofeminism: Women, Animals, Nature*** available by
Temple University Press 1993. Also the arguments I put forth here
are only outlines- not detailed form. Sorry to post such a long message
Katrina
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Mar 22 22:06:19 MST 1995
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 21:06:39 -0800 (PST)
From: Coyote1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Jayne S Docherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Earth as Mother/Spirituality
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Wed, 22 Mar 1995, Jayne S Docherty wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 22 Mar 1995, Coyote1 wrote:
> >
> > > Faith and Rose and whoever else -
> > >
> > > Traditional peoples everywhere
> > > (yes, your ancestors and mine and all our relations) live(d) by this
> > > concept, and the wisdom (a female concept in the Hebrew Bible and
> > > elsewhere) is out there for us to grasp - look back far enough and your
> > > own ancestors can give it to you.
>
> As for the rest of the paragraph, I think there is quite a bit of
> evidence that earlier civilizations did have a different concept of the
> sacred. Although I would also caution against glorifying what we really
> know little about. Not all "traditional peoples" *always* respected the
> environment. There were unhealthy "traditional" cultures which
> brutalized people and the environment, as well.
>
> Jayne
Hmmmmm, Thank you Jayne for your comments - I try always for clarity in
my writing, but maybe I fell down here. I had hoped that a careful
reading of that segment would not leave the impression of naivete on my
part about traditional peoples/cultures either as entirely noble or as
universal in their nobility. But there still is a lot to learn from `all
our relations' and, I think that an atheist or materialist could learn
just as much and aseasily as a spiritualist or animist/pagan like me.
Jacque
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Mar 22 22:51:07 MST 1995
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 00:49:46 -0500 (EST)
From: Jayne S Docherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Katrin Zafiriadis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Earth as Mother/
In-Reply-To: <22MAR95.25405244.0038.MUSIC@LAFAYACS>
On Wed, 22 Mar 1995, Katrin Zafiriadis wrote:
> My name is Katrina, and I thought I would introduce myself before
> commenting on a current discussion. I am a senior at Lafayette College,
> and currently working on an honors project entitled "Ecofeminism and
> theFeminist Divide". In this project I address three main areas 1)
> animals,2) the question of whether "women are closer to nature" and 3)
> the gendering of the Earth and portrayl of Earth as Mother.
Welcome to the list!
> Today I want to address a question Faith Freewoman brings up, and how I
> have written about it in my project.
>
> >I'm also interested in discussion of the pros and cons of concieving the
> >Earth as Mother... s
> But
> >there is so much in the metaphor of E as M which attracts me, and which
> >seems to draw people in and create empathy ... **@@**!!
> >
> >Faith Freewoman
>
> The concept of E. as M., does have a certain appeal- but I would argue
> that is is very problematic in a patriarchal culture which does not
> value women, let alone mothers! Regarding the E. as a woman and a mother
> acts to harm both women and perpetuate the continual degradation of the
> the earth. The gendering of the earth as woman happens in one of 4
> possible ways: 1. as a romanticized female needing protection, 2.as a
> victimized woman, 3.as a woman caretaker/breeder who constantly
> replenishes and provides for all as a mother would or as 4.as a wild
> uncontrollable woman- who needs to be subdued. These four depictions
> each have their own problems associated with them, briefly I will
> outline each.
A GREAT summary of the problems with the E. as M. metaphor. Would love
to hear someone spell out the benefits and strengths of that metaphor.
Your research sounds interesting.
Jayne Docherty
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Mar 22 22:53:38 MST 1995
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 00:52:49 -0500 (EST)
From: Jayne S Docherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Coyote1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Earth as Mother/Spirituality
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Wed, 22 Mar 1995, Coyote1 wrote:
> > As for the rest of the paragraph, I think there is quite a bit of
> > evidence that earlier civilizations did have a different concept of the
> > sacred. Although I would also caution against glorifying what we really
> > know little about. Not all "traditional peoples" *always* respected the
> > environment. There were unhealthy "traditional" cultures which
> > brutalized people and the environment, as well.
> >
> > Jayne
>
>
> Hmmmmm, Thank you Jayne for your comments - I try always for clarity in
> my writing, but maybe I fell down here. I had hoped that a careful
> reading of that segment would not leave the impression of naivete on my
> part about traditional peoples/cultures either as entirely noble or as
> universal in their nobility. But there still is a lot to learn from `all
> our relations' and, I think that an atheist or materialist could learn
> just as much and aseasily as a spiritualist or animist/pagan like me.
>
> Jacque
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Actually, I have never found your comments naive. Always interesting and
enlightening. My caution is directed more at a lot of "new age"
representation (exploitation?) of traditional cultures.
Jayne
