Re: Susan Clayton's comments on rights and duties
> I become nervous whenever anyone talks about a particular right as if it
> were absolute ("life" and "free speech" are often used in this way) without
> a recognition of the fact that these rights, as exercised in particular
> instances, may entail some costs or sacrifices from others.
I feel great sympathy with this view. "Rights" do involve
responsibilities. Claiming "rights" without being aware of and
accepting the responsibilities that go with them is a recipe for
disaster. At the level of big businesses legal measures
are almost certain to be necessary, because if profit is your main
motive there is no incentive to worry about the problems you cause
for others unless you are forced to. Few businesses took action to
curb pollution until they were made to do so, and only constant
vigilance will keep them in line.
Sincerely,
June Brough.
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Mar 23 10:31:12 MST 1995
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 09:31:32 -0800 (PST)
From: Coyote1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Earth as Mother/
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hmmmmmm - This is interesting, don't know how it got sent out but I guess
that's part of the vagaries of living on a mountaintop with forty miles
of copper wire strung over the river and through the woods connecting you
to the outside world. I thought the heavy snowfall had simply cut me off.
I'll try to clean it up so it can be read................Jacque
On Thu, 23 Mar 1995, Coyote1 wrote:
> Maybe this is getting confusing leaving all these layers of past comments=
> in, but I wanted to provide a framework for anyone new joining in.
Read on:
> On Thu, 23 Mar 1995, Jayne S Docherty wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 22 Mar 1995, Coyote1 wrote:
> > > On Wed, 22 Mar 1995, Katrin Zafiriadis wrote:
> > > > Today I want to address a question Faith Freewoman brings up, and how=
> I
> > > > have written about it in my project.
> > > > 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.
> > > Maybe what's bothering me most about the direction this conversation is=
> > > going is that people are accepting `patriarchal culture' as a given. OK,
> > > I admit I live in a really rarified atmosphere up here on top of this
> > > mountain, but I have worked down there in the city in a university
and in
> > > private industry (20 years altogether) I have been extremely poor (the
> > > first thirty years of my life) I have lived in countries even more
> > > patriarchal than this (Greece, Spain, Switzerland) I grew up on the
> > > Yakima reservation (belonging entirely to neither world) and all along
> I
> > > resisted the boxes provided for me at every turn. And it has gotten me
> > > somewhere. I can see clearly that - maybe not all of us, but enough of
> > > us - can resist patriarchy and, I think bring it down simply by
refusing
> > > to lend it any of our energy. We don't have to accept their definitions
> > > when they don't work - and they don't. =20
> > Thanks for expressing this. I agree with you 100%. While I know that=20
> > patriarchy is "real" -- I don't think it is the only thing that is
"real".
> > That is why I asked someone to explain the *positive* dimensions of the E=
> > as M metaphor. It seems to me that there is a "women's experience" (and,=
> > actually a man's experience also because men have mothers) which can form=
> > the basis of a positive Earth is Mother metaphor.
>
You know, E as M works for me and for most of the women I know. My=20
eldest daughter though is a high school science teacher and accepts no=20
concept of deity. She does, however espouse the Gaia principle. =20
Consequently, her (and her husband's) behavior toward the earth is just=20
the same as mine. Whatever metaphor one uses that works to frame one's=20
thinking of oneself as in a direct cause/effect relationship with this=20
tiny spaceship we're all hurtling through eternity on, I say use it.
>
> > > For example, I have a mother, I am a mother and two of my daughters are=
> > > mothers. None of these women fit the above descriptions, nor do
most of
> > > the mothers I know. Why do we have to accept those definitions as givens?
> > > Like I told a friend years ago `Wake up and smell the dogshit. And then
> > > call it dogshit' (sorry if the language is too crude)
> > I agree that perhaps the place to start is with our own experience. As=
> > I was falling asleep last night, having just read the posts on the Earth=
> > as Mother metaphor, I found myself reflecting on my mother and on my=20
> > experience as a mother.
> > It seemed to me that a lot of the negative interpretation of the E is M=
> > metaphor came from the assumption that mothers/women: 1) are "weak" and=
> > easily dominated, and 2) are "overly" generous or indulgent -- always=20
> > giving to their children and to others even at great cost to=20
> > themselves... perhaps even to the ultimate cost of self-sacrifice.
Two classic themes in the mythologies on which the `dominant' culture is=20
based. I would add to category 1) `and therefore not to be trusted'=20
Psyche, Ariadne, Pandora. 2) this is the mother who is glorified at=20
every turn in the HIStories, what lends it validity is that mothers do=20
sacrifice their own lives in extreme cases. What needs to happen is for=20
the voices of `ordinary' women who take care of the day to day and who=20
(with or without supportive partners) raise responsible, productive=20
children and who contribute thoughtfully and with care to the larger=20
society) to be heard denying those archetypes and demanding that
definitions be reassessed
> > But, *I* do not have a weak mother! There are no weak women in my=20
> > family as far as I have been able to determine. My observation of my=20
> > mother and my grandmothers confirmed this and the "women's oral history"=
> > of the family indicates that my great grandmothers were every bit as=20
> > strong and every bit as much "equal partners" in their marriages. =20
> > I certainly try to carry on that tradition.
> > As for the overly generous/indulgent (spoiling?) mother -- that is not my=
> > experience. I have one son of my own, but I ran a day care in my home=20
> > for four years. So, I have "raised" eight children through their
> > formative pre-school years. If I had "spoiled" any of them, if I had=20
> > failed to teach them that there are *limits* to how far they can indulge=
> > themselves at the expense of others, I would have considered myself=20
> > remiss. Perhaps in modern US culture we have so equated raising children=
> > with indulgence, that we have lost sight of our obligation to teach them=
> > that they have *responsibilities* to others -- to their community, to=20
> > their family, to their planet.... One of the first places they can learn=
> > this is when their *mother* (lovingly) sets limits on how far they can=20
> > expect her to go to meet their every whim.
> > So, I would think that *for me* thinking of Earth as Mother, includes a=
> > sense of the *generosity* of the earth, but also a sense that there are=
> > *limits* to how far I may push that generosity.
> > > > 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!!!!
> > > This is a very good issue for discussion!=20
> > Yes! I am acutely aware that my one child -- even though we try to=20
> > limit our consumption -- uses many, many more resources than the child of=
> > someone in a developing country.
> > Jayne
>
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Mar 23 11:11:13 MST 1995
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 10:10:17 -0800 (PST)
From: Dancing Hummingbird /aka Joy Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sender: Dancing Hummingbird /aka Joy Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Dancing Hummingbird /aka Joy Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: materialist ecofeminism
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
First of all, I am not sure that the world "idealist" is a proper word
for those who combine their spiritual side with their ecofeminist side.
"Idealist" implies that we have an "ideal" a "utopian vision", and among
some circles is scoffed at, as someone who has their head in the clouds
and lacks a firm perspective on reality. I am definitely, living here in
California, with the floods that Gaia is raining upon our heads (at this
moment) someone who has a firm perspective on what is happening (i.e.,
global warming). While I do not argue that we have an ideal, I think that
this is not something that is only the perogative of people who are
"spiritual" but by all people who care about the environment. Without an
"Ideal" then we don't know where to go to from here. Without vision, we
have no hope. The only way we can create a sustainable future is by
imagining an ideal situation and coming up with solutions to reach that
solution.
I am an idealist, in that I have a vision of a better world, but I am not
so much an idealist that I think that only my spirituality will make it
happen. Work is the key, spirituality, for myself, the heart. I am also
enough of a realist to realize that it may be too late. But that doesn't
mean that I can't still retain my vision, my spirituality, or my hope.
If I were to lose those things, then there would be no reason for me to
continue on, there would be no reason for any of us to carry on, because
we would be drowned by futility and despair. Ideals, whether in reality
are possible or not, is what connects us to the future possibility.
Vision sustains our hope, hope sustains the struggle. Whether this is
just the plain materialism of the belief in the human capability to
overcome what is seemingly impossible due to ingenuity and creativity, or
whether you regard the human capability to overcome what is seemingly due
to ingenuity and creativity as Divinity or Gaia expressing it's
evoluationary ability to gain consciousness through it's glyol cells
(us), is not the point. In our community here on Ecofem, we are honoring
the vision and the ideal of what is best for life and women and men and
all the creatures of the Earth by discussing it and being actively
involved in issues. We are trying to
actualize this possible future, no matter how cynical we are, by being
involved in the struggle.
Is this Idealism? I guess so, but there is nothing wrong with continuing
to believe in something, even if it is merely our own possibility to
overcome our own human fallibilities. If we don't believe in even that then
what are we doing here?
I would like to add something. I think that a lot of folks here that
criticize those of us that are coming to this from a spiritual
perspective, are still projecting what they are rebelling against what
has caused the problem. However, what I, myself, regard as the Divine,
is not, as far as what I can see, what people like Bertina and others are
objecting to. Then again, I may be wrong, and considering I have 50
messages to sort through, I have not caught up on all of it.
My hit on the Divine, on a God/dess, on "whatever", is that it is the
Infinity of creation which keeps on creating. We are all reflections of
it, but we are not separate from it, just as the cells in our own bodies
are not separate from us, and are necessary for us to keep going. I
regard such entities as Gaia, or Bertina, or the Buddha, my pup, the
chives or the redwood, or any of
us, including myself, as concentrations of consciousness/divinity, that
harbor life, creativity, movement and will. We, as humans, and the
planet itself are fallible as all life is wont to die, that is the cycle
of life, because without death life would not be.
Whether we have an after life or not, I cannot say, except that I do know
ONE thing....that my body will nourish the Earth to bring forth new life,
so in that respect, I do have an afterlife (and no, I won't be embalmed!),
because something will be born from my offerings of myself. I hope that
we do, I really think that our spirits do and I think and hope and believe
that our spirits continue on in the continuum, but I don't KNOW, nor do I
say we do just because I BELIEVE we do. For myself, this brings me
comfort, but I know many people who are very spiritual but are not
"deists" per se, nor do they believe in an afterlife. Spirituality, to me
is the way one relates to the sacredness of life, how one treasures and
protects it, how one revels in it. For me, all expressions of love,
pleasure, sexuality, sensuality, heart-felt work, ritual, art, music,
poetry, dance are all spiritual acts, though they manifest here in the
materialist world. And even if the person doing it is an aetheist. They
are, for me the essence of expression that connect us to each other, that
celebrates our life. And religion, in it's purest etymological
definition, comes from "reli-gare" meaning to "re-connect" or "re-link".
It doesn't mean "Churchianity," and all the institutional patriarchal crap
that is often inherent in the world's "major" religions. Religion is
essentially a community of people that are re-connecting, that are trying
to find the common thread of spirit (which means etymologically "infused
with life"), and that share a common vision.
Joy Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Scion in the Church of All Worlds
"The Garrulous Grok Flok"
Thou Art Goddess!
