On Sun, 12 Mar 1995, Swarr Amanda Lock wrote:
>
> I just don't believe that inspiring such an alternative ecofeminist ethic is
> going to incorporate the _feminist_ aspects of this ideology (ecofem) if we
> continue to martyr sacrifices to the patriarchal capitalist governments
> in the us (for example) as saving the ideal women (the earth).
> Personally, I am interested in stopping the degradation of the
> environment because of a sense of social responsibility, as well as out of
> respect for the power of the earth, but _not_ because I see the earth
> gendered as female or as personified.
>
> -amanda
>
That is your choice, Amanda. But don't try to censor those of us who see
it in a different way. Just because you don't understand this, does not
invalidate it, nor does it mean that feminists should eschew it.
For many, this is the way to reach out to people. We might as well
degender those who gave birth to us as well, if we are trying to avoid
creating a dichotomy. After what you said, I would wonder that we should
have a feminist movement at all, after all, ultimately it's only our
gonads that cause us to be oppressed.
Whether you feel that the Earth is a living breathing organism that gives
birth to life, (which is the definition of mother, by the way), or that's
it's just a cold dead rock in the middle of space which just happened to
accidently be a spot where life happened, is up to you. However, to say
that ecofeminists as a movement should avoid this concept, should avoid
calling the Earth "Mother" is essentially for those of us who resonate
with this aspect of evolution and natural science, for those of us who
are amazed by Her glorious being, telling us that we shouldn't practice
our beliefs, that we should be censored and shunned by the eco-feminist
"society."
It seems to me that the moment you do this is the moment when certain
people in the eco-feminist movement forget that some of the major movers
in the Black civil rights movement were religious people, who were
motivated to resist due to their strong belief in their faith. SHould
the blacks have told them to "be quiet" as well? Or were they valid only
because they are a majority faith, (Xtian), while we who are a minority,
who while fighting to save our Mother will seemingly have to also fight
against religious discrimination by those whom we ostensibly share the
same goals?
Are you saying that we shouldn't stir up the pot too much?
There is strength in diversity.....weakness in monotony. I have no
problem with having aetheists in the fight with me, whatever makes them
tick, (though I can't imagine looking at the glory of the creation and
not feeling a connection to it, not feeling that there is a greater
intelligence than mine at work here, but that is my own difficulty), as
long as no one tells me that:
"We shouldn't call the Earth "mother" because that might create problems"
"We should be careful if we do rituals because people might think we were
Pagans or Witches"
or
"We shouldn't mix the spiritual and the political"
All of these "shouldn'ts" (or "shall nots") are deadly. for one thing, it
immitates the very paradigm which got us where we are today, the
Patriarchal system of fear and ignorance, reward/punsiment. For another
thing it is trying to pigeon-hole what we are, trying to make us all the
same, trying to homogenize us....
Diversity is what creates the richness of life, which creates th basis and
thrust of evolution, and monotony, monotheism and homogeneity are the
dominator culture's way of trying to stop it's forward movement.
Don't silence those of us who find value in bringing the spiritual into
our reasons for our motivations and our struggle and our speech.
This is the same to me as telling the Tibetan Buddhist that he shouldn't
bring his spiritual motivations into his struggle for freein his
countrymen in Tibet because it might scare off those who only look at
this as a civil rights thing.
You know, if you don't like it you can't have any, but don't censor or
call into question why some of us are motivated to do what we do. Just
because you might not grok it, doesn't mean it isn't valid and doesn't
have a place in the greater picture.
Starhawk, who is a STRONG woman who has been involved with the
environmental and the Neo-Pagan community for years said, from Truth or Dare:
"The resistance to questions about spirit among radicals is itself born
of the white culture's delusion that power-over can be countered only by
power-over, that spirit, mystery, bonding, and love are weak forces at
best, and at worst, distractions from serious struggle.
"But the dispossessed, to survive, to have power at all, must seek another
source...[spirituality]
"Spirituality was a powerful force in the black civil rights movement, not
just because many of its leaders came from the Church, but in the way it
was experienced in the lives of ordinary people...
[and her most important point!]
"Spirituality promotes passivity when the domain of spirit is defined
outside the world. When the world is the terrain of spirit, we ourselves
become actors in the story and this world becomes a realm in which the
sacred must be honored and freedom created.
"If we are to be allies in struggle with people of different
backgrounds, we need to respect different worldviews. The debate about
the linking of the spiritual and the political too often takes place in
terms that discount or make invisible the experience of the non-dominant
world. Such cultural imperialism is itself a form of racism..."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
She says it far better than I.
