Coyote comments below - may sound a little `het up' and impatient, well I
am just now - but I get that way.
On Wed, 22 Mar 1995, Katrin Zafiriadis wrote:
> Hi- to all!
>
>
> 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.
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)
> 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!
>
> I want to apologize for the typos- i have yet to figure out how to fix
> them,
No apologies necessary, what software are you using? Maybe we can help
you out.
> Katrina
Kali nichta sas (g' night y'all)
J. Higgins-Rosebrook
NOAA/NWS Stampede Pass
P.O.Box 128
Easton, WA 98925
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Mar 23 05:27:30 MST 1995
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 07:27:22 -0500 (EST)
From: Jayne S Docherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Coyote1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Earth as Mother/
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Wed, 22 Mar 1995, Coyote1 wrote:
>
> Coyote comments below - may sound a little `het up' and impatient, well I
> am just now - but I get that way.
>
> 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.
Thanks for expressing this. I agree with you 100%. While I know that
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.
> 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
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
giving to their children and to others even at great cost to
themselves... perhaps even to the ultimate cost of self-sacrifice.
But, *I* do not have a weak mother! There are no weak women in my
family as far as I have been able to determine. My observation of my
mother and my grandmothers confirmed this and the "women's oral history"
of the family indicates that my great grandmothers were every bit as
strong and every bit as much "equal partners" in their marriages.
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
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
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
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
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
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!
Yes! I am acutely aware that my one child -- even though we try to
limit our consumption -- uses many, many more resources than the child of
someone in a developing country.
Jayne
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Mar 23 08:25:46 MST 1995
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 07:25:49 -0800 (PST)
From: Coyote1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Jayne S Docherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Earth as Mother/
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Maybe this is getting confusing leaving all these layers of past comments=
=20
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:
> >=20
> > On Wed, 22 Mar 1995, Katrin Zafiriadis wrote:
> >=20
> > > Today I want to address a question Faith Freewoman brings up, and how=
I
> > > have written about it in my project.
> > >=20
> > > The concept of E. as M., does have a certain appeal- but I would argu=
e
> > > 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 mot=
her
> > > acts to harm both women and perpetuate the continual degradation of t=
he
> > > 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.
> >=20
> > Maybe what's bothering me most about the direction this conversation is=
=20
> > going is that people are accepting `patriarchal culture' as a given. O=
K,=20
> > I admit I live in a really rarified atmosphere up here on top of this=
=20
> > mountain, but I have worked down there in the city in a university and =
in=20
> > private industry (20 years altogether) I have been extremely poor (the=
=20
> > first thirty years of my life) I have lived in countries even more=20
> > patriarchal than this (Greece, Spain, Switzerland) I grew up on the=20
> > Yakima reservation (belonging entirely to neither world) and all along =
I=20
> > resisted the boxes provided for me at every turn. And it has gotten me=
=20
> > somewhere. I can see clearly that - maybe not all of us, but enough of=
=20
> > us - can resist patriarchy and, I think bring it down simply by refusin=
g=20
> > to lend it any of our energy. We don't have to accept their definition=
s=20
> > when they don't work - and they don't. =20
>=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=20
> "real". =20
>=20
> That is why I asked someone to explain the *positive* dimensions of the E=
=20
> as M metaphor. It seems to me that there is a "women's experience" (and,=
=20
> actually a man's experience also because men have mothers) which can form=
=20
> 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.
>=20
> > For example, I have a mother, I am a mother and two of my daughters are=
=20
> > mothers. None of these women fit the above descriptions, nor do most o=
f=20
> > the mothers I know. Why do we have to accept those definitions as give=
ns?
> > Like I told a friend years ago `Wake up and smell the dogshit. And the=
n=20
> > call it dogshit' (sorry if the language is too crude)
>=20
> I agree that perhaps the place to start is with our own experience. As=
=20
> I was falling asleep last night, having just read the posts on the Earth=
=20
> as Mother metaphor, I found myself reflecting on my mother and on my=20
> experience as a mother.
>=20
> It seemed to me that a lot of the negative interpretation of the E is M=
=20
> metaphor came from the assumption that mothers/women: 1) are "weak" and=
=20
> 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.
=20
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
}P=D56;]$=C6O=CCy^=DC!p6society) to be heard denying SV'=CA=DCz=DC=E6=A9=E3=
+E=FBiU=C0f8=E7=AE
> 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"=
=20
> 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.
>=20
> As for the overly generous/indulgent (spoiling?) mother -- that is not my=
=20
> 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=
=20
> themselves at the expense of others, I would have considered myself=20
> remiss. Perhaps in modern US culture we have so equated raising children=
=20
> with indulgence, that we have lost sight of our obligation to teach them=
=20
> that they have *responsibilities* to others -- to their community, to=20
> their family, to their planet.... One of the first places they can learn=
=20
> this is when their *mother* (lovingly) sets limits on how far they can=20
> expect her to go to meet their every whim.
>=20
> So, I would think that *for me* thinking of Earth as Mother, includes a=
=20
> sense of the *generosity* of the earth, but also a sense that there are=
=20
> *limits* to how far I may push that generosity.
>=20
> > > This metaphor is also problematic because it also resonates with the
> > > blame mothers recieve especially for their fertility. For example, wh=
en
> > > 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!!!!
> >=20
> > This is a very good issue for discussion!=20
>=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=
=20
> someone in a developing country.
>=20
> Jayne
>=20
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Mar 23 09:35:54 MST 1995
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 11:35:40 -0400 (EDT)
Date-warning: Date header was inserted by acs.wooster.edu
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Susan Clayton)
Subject: rights and duties
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On March 21, Alastair McCulloch wrote
>
>Further to the discussion initiated by Swarr Amanda Lock, I think
>that when we talk about 'rights', we also have to consider duties.
>This is because, if I have a right to something, at least one other
>person (and possibly as many people as there people on the planet)
>have a duty towards me. Thus, to say that I have a right to life
>implies that others have a duty not to take my life and, it can also
>be argued, a duty to protect my life.
I found this equation between rights and responsibilities very helpful.
What then does this say about claims that are currently being made in
public discourse regarding, for example, property rights? Or, to be fair
to both sides, the right to clean air and water? Who are we making claims
on when we claim such rights? Are these rights limited by the (sometimes
conflicting or finite) responsibilities of those we expect to protect them?
Can the same be said to be true of the right to life, whether we're
talking about animals, fetuses, or humans?
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.
But my specific question here is whether this can enlighten our
understanding of some of the public debate over environmental issues.
Susan
