I haven't heard anyone mention the controversy of
the romantic notion of earth as mother. There's a
great article in Gaard's book by Chaia Heller called
"...(something) and the Cult of the Romantic." It's
been quite awhile since I've read it but I think it
addresses this whole problematic notion of earth as
mother.
Shawn Boeser
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Mar 29 10:31:14 MST 1995
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 09:27:40 -0800 (PST)
From: Dancing Hummingbird /aka Joy Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Earth as ???
To: J M Brough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Wed, 29 Mar 1995, J M Brough wrote:
>
> One of the problems that I find is that the word "Mother" is so loaded
> with emotional baggage that it is very hard to see beyond that.
Why is that? Why do we have emotional baggage with that word? Because
women have become desacralized? Why do people have negative reactions to
this word, which describes that which gives birth to us?
> There is also the problem that human mothers, in the natural
> course of events, don't usually outlive their children and
> certainly are not expected to look after them in any physical
> sense beyond childhood. Children grow up and become independent,
> but what happens when Earth's children grow up?
>
Problem with this comparison. Life on this planet does not leave, nor
outlive it's parent/Mother....YET. We are still in the womb, we are
still evolving. We are not independent Yet, but who knows what might
happen in the future. There is a lot of talk right now about the "Omega
Point", which may be in a not too distant future, an evolution of
consciousness of the organism. I think that the Earth is going through
labor right now, and in terms or her life span, the power-over paradigm
is a very short time period of time. Who knows if we shan't, if we
SURVIVE the birth, not leave one day to carry her seeds of life to other
places? We don't know that we will not one day be independent of Her.
And if this life finds other places to grow, then we don't know if we
won't outsurvive her. It is the nature of any organism to have the
desire to reproduce. So far She has not demonstrated that ability, in
the sense that something exists outside Herself, which she reproduced and
has matured and gone in it's own direction.
> I am probably happier with the idea of the Earth and all living
> things upon it as part of one whole - not exactly one organism, but
> connected at a very fundamental level. In a literal sense, we are
> part of the Earth, the atoms and molecules that make up our bodies
> have been part of the Earth, and of other living things.
>
> Sincerely, June Brough.
>
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Mar 29 10:46:38 MST 1995
MR-Received: by mta WPB1; Relayed; Wed, 29 Mar 1995 12:46:28 -0500
MR-Received: by mta EPIC66; Relayed; Wed, 29 Mar 1995 12:46:30 -0500
Alternate-recipient: prohibited
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 12:38:52 -0500 (EST)
From: Carol Meeds WPB 407-433-2650 x 113 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: yet another earth as mother comment
In-reply-to: <Pine.3.89.9503290817.A14066-0100000@netcom3>
To: ecofem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Posting-date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 12:46:00 -0500 (EST)
Importance: normal
UA-content-id: A57ZVRQI94IW
A1-type: MAIL
Hop-count: 2
Hi Joy
Yesterday I was looking to introduce the idea of womyn to the
toastmasters. (and toastmistreses?) and appealed to this forum
for a definition of womyn. Didn't get one. Nope! Didn't get one
response. Is there no definition? Is there no purpose for the
introduction of this word, "womyn"? After all of the
correspondence on that topic, does no one really care? Are we all
just using this space as a blank piece of newsprint to scribble on
while we get connected with our own thoughts and feelings and not
for the production of a piece of work with merit? Am I in the
wrong forum to ask this question? Is everyone here a left
brainer? <smile goes here>.
